TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registration by Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI') on July 26, 1995. Since Orcap Securities Ltd. was a registered Company and was engaged in fund based activities, it was not permissible under Rule 8(1)(f) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 to continue fund based business together with broking business. The entity, therefore, got its registration transferred to its group company i.e. MLB Capital Pvt. Ltd. ('MLB' for short) on December 24, 1997. The stockbroker claimed that the transfer was done under compulsion of law and, thus, claimed fee continuity benefit. 2. The appellant contended that SEBI registration fee was paid from time to time and claimed fee continuity benefit till the year 2003-04 and the paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 31,70,871/-. The Tribunal by an order dated December 7, 2016 disposed of the Misc. Application permitting the appellant to make a representation to SEBI for claiming interest on the principal amount. Based on the said direction of the Tribunal the appellant made a representation for claiming a shortfall of Rs. 10,635/- towards principal amount and interest amounting to Rs. 38,51,420/- calculated at the rate of 10% p. a. for a period from November 11, 2004 to December 7, 2016. The said application was considered and rejected by SEBI by an order dated July 24, 2017 holding that there is no provision for payment of interest under the Act or Statute. Further, SEBI held that the Supreme Court while allowing the appeal by judgment dated D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al or before the Supreme Court for refund of the fee alongwith interest and consequently, no relief for interest could be granted in the second round of litigation. It was urged that the refund of the principal amount and interest accrued on it is regarded as one and the same cause of action. The principles envisaged under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) would be applicable in the instant case. It was contended that since the appellant did not claim the relief of interest before the Tribunal or before the Supreme Court of India, such omission, being intentional, cannot allow the appellant now at this stage to make a claim on interest. It was urged that the appeal filed by the appellant for claim of interest was wholly erro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tinuity. The appellant did not claim any relief for payment of interest on the principal amount. 11. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the appellant applied for refund alongwith interest. SEBI refunded the principal amount less Rs. 10,635/- and refused to grant interest. The appellant is now questioning the veracity of the impugned order denying to the interest. 12. In this regard, we are of the opinion that the principles of Order II Rule 2 of CPC would be fully applicable. For facility, the provision of Order II Rule 2 of CPC is extracted hereunder :- "Rule 2. Suit to include the whole claim.- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained the proposition of law and the scope and interrelation between Rules 2, 3 and 4 of Order II in the following words :- "16. In terms of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code, all the reliefs which could be claimed in the suit should be prayed for. Order II, Rule 3 provides for joinder of causes of action. Order II, Rule 4 is an exception thereto. For joining causes of action in respect of matters covered by Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Order II, Rule 4, no leave of the court is required to be taken. Even without taking leave of the court, a prayer in that behalf can be made. A suit for recovery of possession on declaration of one's title and/ or injunction and a suit for mesne profit or damages may involve different cause of action. For a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....barred from claiming the relief in the second suit. 14. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that the cause of action was same and was not distinct or different. The appellant before the Tribunal had prayed for refund of fee liability. No refund for interest was claimed. The appellant did not claim the relief of interest even before the Supreme Court. In the second round of litigation, the appellant cannot now claim the relief of interest. The claim of interest flows from the same cause of action, namely, the refund of fee liability. 15. In view of the aforesaid, since the appellant did not claim the relief of interest while seeking the refund of fee liability, the appellant is now barred by principle of Order II Rule 2 of CPC from cl....