Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai Vs. Share India Securities Limited, Delhi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/941056
CourtSEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided OnMar-01-2012
Case NumberMiscellaneous Application No.32 of 2012 In Appeal No.188 of 2011
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P.K. MALHOTRA, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE S.S.N. MOORTHY, MEMBER
AppellantSecurities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
RespondentShare India Securities Limited, Delhi
Advocates:For the Applicant: Kumar Desai, Mihir Mody and Mr. Mobin Shaikh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Prakash Shah, Advocate.
Excerpt:
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.....
Judgment:

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.