<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (10) TMI 345 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SMC)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110239</link>
    <description>A regulatory circular requiring separate registration fee for each SEBI registration held by a stock broker was upheld as intra vires the governing regulations. The court construed the SEBI Act, the Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers Rules, and the registration and fee provisions to permit registration-linked supervision for each stock exchange membership and to allow the regulator to prescribe the mode of fee computation. The earlier Supreme Court ruling recognising annual turnover as only a measure of levy was treated as decisive. On that basis, the challenge to treating multiple registrations as fee-bearing units failed, and the clarification on fee liability was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:10:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 345 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SMC)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110239</link>
      <description>A regulatory circular requiring separate registration fee for each SEBI registration held by a stock broker was upheld as intra vires the governing regulations. The court construed the SEBI Act, the Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers Rules, and the registration and fee provisions to permit registration-linked supervision for each stock exchange membership and to allow the regulator to prescribe the mode of fee computation. The earlier Supreme Court ruling recognising annual turnover as only a measure of levy was treated as decisive. On that basis, the challenge to treating multiple registrations as fee-bearing units failed, and the clarification on fee liability was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>