TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer And Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member For the Appellant : Mr. Sandip Parikh, Advocate, Mr. Kamal Agrawal, Authorised Representative, For the Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rashid Boatwalla and Mr. Juan D'Souza, Advocates i/b. MKA & Co, Mr. Jaikishan Lakhwani, Mr. Akshay Vani, Mr. Sunilkumar and Mr. Aditya Manjrekar, Advocates i/b MLS Vani & Associates, Mr. Ishan Agrawal, Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate i/b Nyaayam Associates, Ms. Krushi N. Barfiwala, Advocate with Mr. Shlok Bodas, Advoate i/b Parinaam Law Associates ORDER Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer 1. Even though separate orders have been passed by the Member and Core Settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Bye Laws of the Stock Exchange and accordingly expelled Anugrah as a stock broker from the Exchange. 5. On February 19, 2021 the appellant Sameer Himatlal Shah lodged a claim for payment of Rs. 58.71 lakhs under the Investor Protection Fund. This claim was found to be inadmissible and was rejected by the Committee on March 27, 2021. A Review Application was filed which was also dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal which was allowed by an order of this Tribunal dated November 24, 2022 and the matter was remitted to the Committee to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Based on the directions the impugned order has been passed again rejecting the claim of the appellant. 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9-Mar-20 4,800.00 18. PSS177 11-Mar-20 63,000.00 8. Similar returns were given to the other appellants and a similar finding has been given by the Committee. 9. We have heard Shri Sandip Parikh, the learned counsel and Shri Kamal Agrawal, Authorised Representative for the appellants and Shri Gaurav Joshi, the learned senior counsel and Mr. Jaikishan Lakhwani, Mr. Ishan Agrawal, and Ms. Krushi Barfiwala, the learned counsel for the Respondent. 10. The basic contention of the appellants is, that they have sold and purchased shares through transactions on the Stock Exchange platform and the broker i.e. Anugrah has given the pay-outs which is not related to any assured returns. In support of their contention some of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contract notes have been filed relating to the amount received by the appellants and depicted in the impugned orders. 14. We find that no evidence has been filed to show that the amounts received by the appellants as depicted in the impugned order were pursuant to the contract notes which they have annexed in their memorandum of appeal. 15. Under Rule 8(f) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 no person is eligible to be elected as a member if he is engaged in any business other than that of securities or commodity derivatives except as a broker or agent who is not involved in any personal financial liability. The offering of DAS by Anugrah to its clients which included the appellants assuring fixed returns was prohibi....