Mandatory interest on delayed stockbroker fee upheld, with limited credit for interest on retained balance.

The governing stockbroker regulation treated interest on delayed annual turnover fee as mandatory at 15% per annum, so the securities regulator had no discretion to waive or reduce it merely because the fee liability had been litigated for a long period. The Tribunal also recognised that, where a sum remained in the broker's credit balance for a limited period without corresponding interest being given, fairness required crediting simple interest at 15% per annum for that interval. The result was that the interest levy on the outstanding fee remained payable, while the computation was modified to allow interest credit on the credited amount for the specified period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest on the outstanding annual turnover fee was mandatorily leviable under the applicable stockbroker regulations and whether the securities regulator had any discretion to waive or reduce it. (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to credit for interest on the amount lying in its credit balance for a limited period.

Issue (i): Whether interest on the outstanding annual turnover fee was mandatorily leviable under the applicable stockbroker regulations and whether the securities regulator had any discretion to waive or reduce it.

Analysis: The applicable regulation provided for interest at 15% per annum on delayed payment of fee. The earlier directions of the Tribunal did not confer a power on the regulator to treat the levy of interest as optional. Interest on delayed fee payment was treated as compensatory in nature, and the word used in the regulation was held to be mandatory rather than permissive. On that basis, no discretion existed to reduce or waive the interest merely because the fee liability had been litigated for a long time.

Conclusion: The levy of interest on the outstanding fee was held to be mandatory and the appellant's challenge to the principle of charging interest failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to credit for interest on the amount lying in its credit balance for a limited period.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that, for the period when a sum of Rs. 74,55,793/- remained in the appellant's credit, no corresponding interest had been given. Since the amount stood to the appellant's credit for that limited period, fairness required that simple interest at 15% per annum be credited for that interval alone. The impugned computation therefore required modification to that extent.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to interest credit for the period from 6 September 2003 to 1 October 2003 on the credit balance of Rs. 74,55,793/-.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of granting interest credit for the specified credit-balance period, while the substantive liability to pay interest on the outstanding fee was otherwise upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing regulation mandates interest on delayed fee payment, the regulator has no discretion to waive or reduce that interest merely because the liability was disputed, but any credit balance retained by the authority for a corresponding period must be given appropriate interest credit.

---