Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court Rules Trading Members Don't Need Depository License; Index Derivatives Traders Not Required to Hold Demat Accounts.</h1> <h3>Marketwolf Securities Private Limited & Anr. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors.</h3> Marketwolf Securities Private Limited & Anr. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors. - 2025:BHC - OS:941 - DB 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:(a) Whether the Petitioners are required to obtain a Depository Participant license ('DP Licence') to continue their broking business under the Impugned Circulars.(b) Whether clients trading exclusively in index derivatives need to hold demat accounts under the Impugned Circulars.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Requirement of a Depository Participant LicenseRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Impugned Circulars issued by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were examined to determine if they mandated a DP Licence for brokers engaged solely in broking activities.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Petitioners misinterpreted the Impugned Circulars. It was clarified that the circulars do not require brokers, who are not engaged in depository participant activities, to hold a DP Licence.Key evidence and findings: The Court relied on the instructions provided by the Respondents, which clarified that the Petitioners, as Trading Members, do not need a DP Licence.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the clarification provided by the Respondents to conclude that the Petitioners' grievance regarding the DP Licence requirement did not survive.Treatment of competing arguments: The Petitioners' argument that a DP Licence was unnecessary for their broking activity was addressed and resolved through the Respondents' clarification.Conclusions: The Court concluded that no grievance remained regarding the requirement of a DP Licence for the Petitioners.Issue (b): Requirement for Clients to Hold Demat AccountsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Impugned Circulars were evaluated to determine if they mandated demat accounts for clients trading exclusively in index derivatives.Court's interpretation and reasoning: Respondent No. 1 clarified via email that clients dealing exclusively in index derivatives and providing margins through cash are not required to hold demat accounts.Key evidence and findings: The Court considered the email dated 13th January 2025 from Respondent No. 1 and subsequent circulars from Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4, which confirmed that no demat accounts are required for such clients.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the clarification to resolve the issue, noting that the Petitioners' clients trading exclusively in index derivatives do not need demat accounts.Treatment of competing arguments: The Petitioners' contention that demat accounts were redundant for index derivatives was addressed by the Respondents' clarification.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the issue of requiring demat accounts for clients trading exclusively in index derivatives was resolved, and no grievance remained.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court noted, 'Since the Petitioner is a Trading Member (and not a depository participant), the Petitioner does not need a DP license.'Core principles established: The Court established that the Impugned Circulars do not mandate a DP Licence for brokers not engaged in depository participant activities and that clients trading exclusively in index derivatives do not require demat accounts if they provide margins through cash.Final determinations on each issue: The Court determined that all grievances raised by the Petitioners were resolved through the clarifications provided by the Respondents, and the Petition was disposed of accordingly.The judgment concluded with the disposal of the Petition, noting that the Impugned Circulars apply to trades other than those pertaining to the index derivative product of the equity derivative segment, as clarified. No order as to costs was made, and the order was to be digitally signed and acted upon by all concerned parties.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found