After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we order as under:
In paragraph 3 of this Tribunal’s order in Appeal no.188 of 2011 dated 9.1.2012 the following two sentences stand deleted.
“Confronted with this statement of the appellant the learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that this point is not pressed since the facts of the case show that Rishabh was registered as a subbroker on the NSE. The learned counsel for the respondent would accept the position of law as enunciated by the Delhi High Court in National Stock Exchange Members vs. Union of India and Others 2006 (133) Company Cases 504 and would admit that multiple registration is not necessary.”
In place of the above the following is substituted:
“During the course of hearing Counsel for Applicant Mr. Kumar Desai submitted that since the order and judgement of the Delhi High Court passed in National Stock Exchange Members vs. Union of India and Others 2006 (133) Company Cases is under challenge before the Supreme Court, he will not argue on the requirement or otherwise of multiple registration.”
The order stands modified accordingly.