Pre-existing pledge in dematerialised securities survives a broker restraint order and remains enforceable against the bank.

An interim restraint order against a broker and related entities was treated as in personam, not in rem, so it did not extinguish a bank's pre-existing pledge over dematerialised securities. The Depositories Act, 1996 and the depository framework were described as a self-contained code governing creation and invocation of such pledges, with the beneficial owner recorded in depository records treated as the relevant owner for that purpose. The circulars on pledging of client securities were held to regulate broker conduct, not to impose the same obligations on the bank. The bank's acceptance and invocation of the pledge was therefore supported by due diligence, and no breach of the interim order or the circulars was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim restraint order issued against the broker and related entities operated as an order in rem so as to bind the bank, whether the bank's invocation of the pledged securities violated the SEBI circulars and the interim order, and whether the bank had failed to exercise due diligence while accepting and invoking the pledge.

Analysis: The restraint order was directed against the broker and its related entities and was held to be an order in personam, not an order in rem. The directions in the interim order could not be expanded to extinguish pre-existing third-party rights in pledged securities. Reliance was placed on the principle that a pledge or mortgage created before attachment preserves the pledgee's interest, and the pledged property cannot be treated as part of the debtor's free assets for satisfaction of the debtor's liabilities. The Depositories Act, 1996 and the regulations governing dematerialised securities were treated as a self-contained code. A pledge in dematerialised securities is created under that statutory scheme, and the beneficial owner recorded with the depository is treated as the relevant owner for that purpose. The record showed that the securities stood in the broker's name in the depository records, and the bank's acceptance of the pledge on that basis was found to be supported by due diligence. The circulars concerning pledging of client securities were held to regulate the broker's conduct and not to impose the same obligations on the bank. The notice requirement in the later circular was also held to be a broker-side obligation, not a burden on the bank invoking the pledge.

Conclusion: The bank was entitled to invoke the validly created pledge, and no violation of the interim order or the SEBI circulars was made out against it.

Final Conclusion: The impugned directions imposing deposit and penalty could not stand, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A restraint order directed against a debtor or its related entities does not, by itself, extinguish a prior valid pledge held by a third party, and dematerialised securities pledged under the Depositories Act must be governed by that statutory regime rather than by a general attachment or restraint over the debtor's assets.

---