Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – s.12(1) – Whether in terms of s.12(1), a single registration with SEBI is sufficient even if the stock broker has various memberships and functions from several stock exchanges and, therefore, will have to pay the fee for the initial registration with SEBI – Held: The conjoint reading of the expression “a certificate” as referred to in s.12(1) of the Act, 1992 read with the scheme of Rules, 1992 and Regulations, 1992, leads to an inevitable conclusion that the stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1992 in reference to each certificate of registration from SEBI in terms of the computation prescribed under SEBI Circular dated 28th March, 2002 and fee is to be paid as a guiding principle by the stock broker which is in conformity with the scheme of Regulations 1992 – Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992 – Securities and Exchange Board of India(Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992.
Interpretation of Statutes – True intention of the legislature – Purposive interpretation – Held: A statute has to be construed according to the intent that makes it – If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, it is always desirable of the Court to choose the interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature – While interpreting the statutory provisions, the Court is always supposed to keep in mind the object or purpose for which the statute has been enacted.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A statute has to be construed according to the intent that makes it and it is always the duty of the Court to act upon the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, it is always desirable of the Court to choose the interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. Also, to arrive at the intention of the legislation, it is always depending on the objects for which the enactment is made, the Court can resort to historical, contextual and purposive interpretation leaving textual interpretation aside. Thus, while interpreting the statutory provisions, the Court is always supposed to keep in mind the object or purpose for which the statute has been enacted. [Para 43][933-F-H]
2.1. The conjoint reading of the expression “a certificate” as referred to in Section 12(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with the scheme of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992 and Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, leads to an inevitable conclusion that the stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1992 in reference to each certificate of registration from SEBI in terms of the computation prescribed under SEBI Circular dated 28th March, 2002 and fee is to be paid as a guiding principle by the stock broker which is in conformity with the scheme of Regulations 1992. [Para 47][935-D-F]
2.2. So far as emphasis on the expression ‘date of initial registration’ as referred to in Schedule III(I)(1)(c) is concerned, it is in relation to a certificate of registration which has been obtained by the stock broker from SEBI, which in turn is in relation to the stock exchange of which he is a member. After the expiry of five financial years from the date of initial registration, in reference to the stock exchange, the fee has to be deposited for the purpose of sixth financial year to keep his registration in force. [Para 48][935-F-G]
Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others (1979) 2 SCC 34 : [1979]
1 SCR 26 – followed.
BSE Brokers’ Forum, Bombay and Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Others (2001) 3 SCC
482 and K. P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another (1981) 4 SCC 173 : [1982] 1 SCR 629 – referred to.
“Purposive Construction” by Barak and “Statutory Interpretation” by Francis Bennion – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.