TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Rejection of Compensation Claim Due to Non-Exchange Transaction</h1> <h3>Dr. Pallavi Yashodhan Divekar Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors.</h3> Dr. Pallavi Yashodhan Divekar Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Claim for compensation from Investors Protection Fund.2. Rejection of claim based on transaction not executed through the exchange platform.3. Interpretation of Circular dated 23rd February, 2017.4. Discretionary nature of compensation from the Fund.Analysis:Issue 1: Claim for compensation from Investors Protection FundThe petitions involved a claim by an Advocate against a registered broker for non-delivery of shares, leading to an arbitration award in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner sought compensation from the Investors Protection Fund, which was rejected by Respondent No.3. The petitioner argued that the circulars issued by SEBI did not exclude claims not made through the exchange platform. The court noted the purpose of the Fund to assist small investors and examined the sources of contribution to the Fund, emphasizing the need for fair and non-arbitrary decisions.Issue 2: Rejection of claim based on transaction not executed through the exchange platformRespondent No.3 rejected the petitioner's claim citing that the transaction was not executed through the exchange platform, treating it as a loan transaction, and thus not eligible for compensation from the Fund. The court analyzed the communication detailing the rejection, highlighting the absence of trades on the exchange and the nature of the transaction as reasons for denial. The court found no error in Respondent No.3's decision, emphasizing the importance of transactions executed on the BSE platform for eligibility for compensation.Issue 3: Interpretation of Circular dated 23rd February, 2017The court examined the Circular dated 23rd February, 2017, which clarified the guidelines for the Fund, emphasizing that claims must be from transactions executed on the exchange platform to be eligible for compensation. The court noted that the circular explicitly declared the policy of SEBI to entertain only those claims arising from BSE transactions. The court found the circular to be clarificatory and correctly applied in the petitioner's case.Issue 4: Discretionary nature of compensation from the FundThe court acknowledged the discretionary nature of granting compensation from the Fund but emphasized that decisions should not be arbitrary. While the arbitration awards supported the petitioner's claim against the broker, the court highlighted that the policy of Respondent No.3, as per SEBI circulars, determined the eligibility for compensation. The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the decision to reject the petitioner's claim based on the transaction not being executed through the BSE platform.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
