TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking invalidation of the Award dated 30/01/2024 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, under which Tribunal allowed the claim filed by the claimant Daksha Bhavsar, respondent no. 1 before us to the extent of Rs. 86,02,768/- and directed it to pay the awarded sum, being the value of her lost shares on the date of the dispute. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the awarded sum. 2. The background reveal that Daksha Bhasar had filed a statement of claim before the Arbitral Tribunal against CDSL and BRH Wealth Kreators (West Bengal) and the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three Arbitrators granted the claim and upon a challenge being raised to the Award, the learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment reached to a conclusion that the view of the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view taken after considering the facts and circumstances of the case by holding the Petitioner responsible for indemnifying Respondent No. 1 for lost shares and since the impugned Award did not suffer from perversity or patent illegality apart from the fact that Award was supported by reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....positories Act, 1996 i.e. CDSL or NSDL. In addition, there are stock brokers who execute the orders resulting in trade received from trading account holders, who are registered with and regulated by stock exchanges like the National Stock Exchange (NSE) or Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). There are also Clearing Members' who clear trades on its own behalf or on behalf of other stock brokers and who are registered with and regulated by Clearing Corporation like NSE. The Petitioner function as a central accountant and record keeping office in respect of Securities in dematerialized form. Any company which wants to issue any Securities in dematerialized form or provide the option to the holder of its securities to hold it in dematerialized form, is required to admit its securities into the system of the Petitioner or the other Depository Participant i.e. NSDL, by establishing electronic connectivity with such Depository either directly or through Registrar and Transfer Agent and both listed and unlisted Securities can be admitted into the system. The Petitioner operates through various agents referred to as 'Depository Participants' who act as intermediaries between the Petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted a Power of Attorney (PoA) in favour of the Stock Broker. On 31/07/2019 and 23/08/2019, the Stock Broker BRH Wealth Kreators transferred the equity shares from Bhavsar's Demat Account (BOID1204630001867255 Bo-Sub Status Individual-Resident) to its Corporate Trading Member (TM)/Clearing Member (CM) Client Account. This transfer was carried out pursuant to the authority conferred under the PoA and by virtue of the said transfer the title in Bhavsar's securities was transferred to the TM/CM account of the Stock Broker, which was the first leg of the transaction. Shares being fungible in nature, with its transfer from the Demat Account of Bhavsar to the Stock Broker's TM/CM account, it became the holder of the Securities and was entitled to further transfer the Securities. Bhavsar was aware that the Securities have been transferred out of a joint Demat Account as pursuant to the first leg of transaction being completed, CDSL generated SMS alert of the transfer on her registered mobile number. 8. Once the Securities of Bhavsar went into the account of Stock Broker, who was also dealing with shares of various beneficial owners and which had reached first TM/CM account (BOID 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the Apex Court. 9. On 11/01/2023, SEBI, by invoking powers under Section 11 of the SEBI Act, 1992, passed an order declaring that BRH had violated its duty as broker under SEBI Circular dated 18/11/2021 and 26/09/2016 by pledging the shares of its clients. As the SEBI intended to take strict action for such violation, BRH was debarred from the market for 7 years and was directed to pay the investors, under the supervision of NSE. By order dated 06/06/2023, SAT permitted Daksha Bhavsar to initiate arbitration proceedings for redressal of her grievance and accordingly the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three Arbitrators was constituted by CDSL. Before the Tribunal, Daksha Bhavsar filed Statement of Claim (SoC) on 17/07/2023 and while seeking adjudication of her claims, she attributed negligence to CDSL in discharge of its duties and staked her claim that CDSL alongwith BRH were jointly and severally liable to restore her shares or make payment of the amount claimed in the SOC. CDSL resisted the claim of Daksha Bhavsar by filing reply. However, in the meantime, SEBI examined the entire transaction and issued notice to CDSL alleging that it had violated certain provisions of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he purpose other than fulfilling the margin requirements. The Arbitral Tribunal also probed in to the role of BRH as Depository and held that it failed to obtain 'pledge request' from the client before pledging her securities as required under SEBI (DP Regulations) and CDSL bye-laws and this amounted to serious manipulation by BRH. Apart from this, the Arbitral Tribunal also held that it was unconceivable that unauthorized pledge could have been made without involvement of BRH as Depository Participant and in absence of client pledge request and the PoA not authorizing Depository Participant to pledge client securities, it was concluded that the pledge created by BRH was fraudulent. By referring to the Scheme of Depositories Act as well as the SEBI Regulations, 2018, bye-laws of CDSL, the Arbitral Tribunal held that there was abject failure of Government, both structurally and hierarchically and all attempts were made to insulate the Depositor from defaults committed by BRH as Depository Participant. Since in the whole scheme of the Depositories Act, Depository Participant exercised the role as an agent of the Depository, the Tribunal observed that the fundamental question of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fungible form and under the Scheme the beneficial owner retain all rights and liabilities in respect of the Securities. Relying upon the Scheme of the Act, Mr. Kadam has submitted that the Depository functions merely as a registered owner for the limited purpose of effecting transfer and the Depository Participant acts only on instructions of the beneficial owner (the client) or his authorized PoA holder, as per the Regulations of 2018 and upon receipt of intimation from a Participant, the Depository is statutorily bound to register the transfer. Thus, function of a Depository is merely administrative i.e. confined to record keeping and verification of authorization, is the submission of Mr. Kadam and he would submit that keeping in mind this role the Depository is entitled to charge nominal transfer fee and account charges. As against this, he would submit that the Stock Exchange is exclusively empowered and conferred with jurisdiction to examine whether the transfer by brokers under the PoA was for margin requirements and for a proper use. For this purpose, he would place reliance upon the circular dated 26/09/2016, which the SEBI has issued with a view of enhanced supervi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were erroneously received and/or defaulted by a person acting in dual capacity, his role as Stock Broker is attracted and the onus is cast on him as 'Broker' to return the shares and he is bound by guideline No.8 of the said circular. According to Mr. Kadam, SEBI, the Regulator itself had exonerated the Petitioner, and he would place reliance upon the order dated 24/07/2023 to that effect and would submit that SEBI recognized that the Depository has no control over securities, balances etc. that would enable it to inquire into why a transfer was being sought and with the specific observations to the effect that the Noticee i.e. CDSL was under obligation to process the request for creation of pledge within 15 days of the application, it had very limited scope with respect to determining legality of the hypothecation operation and in extending the scope to include analysis of debit balance of clients, whose shares have been pledged seems to be misplaced. In conclusion, the order noted that Noticee i.e. CDSL by allowing creation of pledge by BRH from Demat Account of its clients has not violated the provisions of Regulation 79(5) or Regulation 79(3) of the Regulations of 2018. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the Bank and this finding was rightly based upon the statutory regime under 2016 circular, as such transfers effected by the Broker in Clause 2.4.3, which was monitored by Stock Exchanges under clause 2.4.4. However, according to him, the Tribunal erroneously held that BRH has deeply failed to obtain pledge request from the client after pledging the client's securities under DP Regulations and CDSL Bye-laws. This finding, according to him suffers from perverse and patent illegality, as the Tribunal ignored the admitted vital fact that shares were not directly pledged from Daksha Bhavsar's account, but the transactional chain in three tranches clearly lead to an inference that there was no occasion to obtain her assent to the pledge, when the shares were not pledged from her account. The first leg of transfer according to Mr. Kadam, was legally permissible prior to June 2020 since as per Clause 2.4.3 of 2016 Circular, being a transfer from beneficial account to the broker's pool account (TM/CM account) and the onus to ascertain whether such transfer was in furtherance of actual broker requirement was on the stock exchange as per 2016 circular. According to him, since shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Kadam is highly erroneous as according to him the monitoring agency in the Securities market is SEBI and if SEBI has given CDSL a clean chit and exonerated it, the finding of the Tribunal, is perverse, when it held that the Appellant was negligent in not supervising BRH's conduct qua obtaining concurrence before the pledge. In addition, he would place into service a well settled principle that the liability of acts committed by an Agent beyond its authority are not attributable to the Principal and he would place reliance upon two decisions of the Apex Court; State Orissa vs. Union India Assurance Company Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 512 and Britannia Industries Limited vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 642. According to him, the Authority conferred upon the Depository Participant as agent are specifically prescribed under the bye-laws in form of 'rights and obligations' of participants in relation to CDSL making it imperative to maintain separate accounts by every participant in the name of its beneficial owner and Securities of each beneficial owner to be segregate Agented and not to be mixed up with the securities of others or with the participant's own securities. Rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be transferred to the broker for margin, which can be utilized for any future trade and then such a transfer is said to be made in the course of broker's activities. This transaction, according to him, is fortified under Clause 2.4.3 of 2016 Circular which provide that a transfer from client's account to the pool account, was transfer by a person acting as Broker and such transaction would be monitored for compliance by the Exchange under Clause 2.4.4. 15. Mr. Kadam would also heavily rely upon the bye-laws of CDSL to submit that inter-mixing of Securities was beyond BRH's Authority, but the Single Judge failed to take note of the same and he would insist in noticing that the impugned Award as well as the impugned Judgment did not identify a single duty or responsibility allegedly breached by the Depository i.e. the Appellant and in its absence, no liability could have been fastened upon it. The whole emphasis of Mr. Kadam in raising a challenge to the Award which, warranted an interference at the instance of the learned Single Judge is, that the view adopted has unsettled the very structure of the Securities Market, as the Depository CDSL has been held liable for functions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2019) 15 SCC 131, and Consolidated Construction Ltd. vs. Software Technology Parks of India (2025) 7 SCC 757. 18. Mr. Tamboly has placed before us a Circular issued by SEBI on 17/12/2018 addressed to All Recognized Stock Exchanges/Clearing Corporations and the Depositories, on the subject of 'Early Warning Mechanism' to prevent diversion of client securities and according to him, this circular was issued in the back drop of instances where stock broker had diverted clients' Securities received as collaterals towards margin obligations and/or settlement obligations for raising loan against shares on their own account and/or for meeting securities shortages in settlement obligations of its own account. According to Mr. Tamboly, the circular outlined the early warning signals in relation to Securities pledge transactions by the stock broker to be identified by the Depositories and to be shared by the Stock Exchanges. Not only this, the said circular also contemplated constant monitoring by CDSL from the alerts generated from the monthly /weekly submissions made by the Stock Broker under the risk based supervision (RBS) or enhanced supervision to the Stock Exchanges. The mos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upervisory responsibilities that defined it and re-characterize its statutory duties as merely mechanical or administrative, in an attempt to shirk its statutory obligations and evade the liability under Section 16 of the DP Act. According to him, the DP Regulations has set out the core function of the Depository and this includes critical operations like holding, transfer of securities, record keeping, cyber security and cyber resilience framework alongwith the regulatory compliance like surveillance, investigation, inspection, investor protection and services etc. According to Mr. Tamboly the Depositories Act read with the DP regulations framed thereunder, cast a substantive and continuing duty on the Depository CDSL to protect investors/beneficial owners interest and to supervise the activity of its Depository Participant and according to him, it is a statutory mandate and not a discretionary function to be discharged. When BRH has faulted or alleged to have faulted, as a Depository Participant, it was the duty of the Appellant, which is governed by the Code of Conduct and make it imperative for it to adopt a pro active approach in protecting the investors, monitoring the Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the Circulars from time to time. According to him, if the Depositories are permitted to disclaim the fraudulent activity of their own Depository Participants, who act as its Agent and are bound by its own bye-laws and have to operate within a regulatory architecture of their own design, then the investors who place trust in such Depository, which is expected to play a pro active role in keeping the check on the purported transactions or else an investor would be stripped of his life saving with no meaningful recourse. It is therefore asseverated by the Mr. Tamboly that the appellant cannot run away of its responsibility when BRH has altered and caused loss to the respondent no. 2. 21. The counter submissions advanced before us need to be appreciated in the backdrop of prevailing statutory regime which include the SEBI Act, 1992, which provide for establishment of a Board to protect the interest of investors in Securities and to promote the development of and regulate the Securities market in India. The Board constituted under Section 3 of the Act is cast with a duty to protect the interest of investors in securities by adopting such measure as it thinks fit and this inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The regime of Securities is also governed by the Depositories Act, 1996 which is a statute to provide for regulation of Deposit in Securities and the matter is connected therein. The Depositories Act has the participation of beneficial owner that is a person whose name is recorded with a Depository. A Depository is a company formed and registered under the Companies Act and which has secured a Certificate of Registration under Sub Section 1-A of Section 12 of the SEBI Act, 1992. 'Participant' as per Section 2(g) means a person registered under sub-Section 1A of Section 12 of SEBI ACT 1992 and registered owner is a, Depository whose name is entered as such in the Register of the Issuer. The Depositories Act contemplate an agreement between the 'Depository' and one or more 'Participant' (broker) as its agent and any person, though a participant may enter into an agreement with any Depository for availing the Services in such forms as specified by the Bye-laws. A 'Depository', on receipt of the information shall enter the name of a person in its record as the 'beneficial owner'. The duties of the 'Depository' are set out in Section 7 of the Act which include registration of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epository in which it proposes to act as a Participant and the Depository Participant under Section 35 entitled for registration may be a Public Financial Institution, a Bank, State Financial Corporation, a Clearing Corporation or Clearing House of Stock Exchange or a Stock Broker granting Certificate of Registration by the Board under Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, as well as a non banking finance company having net worth of not less than 50 Lakhs etc. The rights and obligations of the Depository, Participants, Issuers etc. including the manner of surrender of Certificate and creation of pledge or hypothecation is also specifically provided in the Regulation with the prohibition of assignment imposed on the Depository from assigning or delegating to any other person its functions as Depository without prior approval of the Board. It is also mandatory for every participant to enter into an Agreement with the beneficial owner before acting as participant as per the bye-laws No.5.3.23, of the Depository. One important stipulation in the Regulation is maintaining of separate accounts and we deem it appropriate to reproduce Regulation 59 and 60, which reads thus: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The DP Regulations has set out the code functions of the Depository and this includes the key function of holding, transfer of securities, record keeping and to regulate as a regulatory compliance. It is involved in risk management, surveillance, investigation, inspection, investor protection services and also providing a redressal mechanism. In terms of the Depositories Act alongwith the Regulations, the depository plays a substantive role in protecting the interest of the investors/ beneficial owners and supervising the activities of its participants. CDSL as a depository has framed its own by-laws and Mr. Kadam has tendered a copy of the same. 26. CDSL Bye-laws has defined market trades concluded through market trades and off market trades. CDSL indulges in trades concluded through the trading system of recognized stock exchange and clear and settle through clearing corporation which has entered into an Agreement with CDSL and this include trades which are negotiated privately and reported for clearing and settlement through clearing corporation. It also engages off market trades i.e. trades that are not cleared or settled through the clearing corporation which entered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and Daksha Bhavssar was aware of such transaction, but it is the specific case of Mr. Tamboly that though the De-mat account was opened by Daksha Bhavsar with BRH on 18/06/2018, it being a stock broker and also Depository Participant, she was always a passive, long term investor with no trades/pledges and no market obligations before the disputed transaction. It is the case of Mr. Tamboly that after a period of one year i.e. on 31/07/2019 and 23/08/2019 without any specific instructions from Daksha Bhavsar, BRH by misusing the PoA issued in its favour, illegally transferred the shares valued at Rs.98,07,884.60 from her De-mat Account into its own TM/CM Account. Mr. Tamboly has specifically urged that the PoA was never placed on record. The further transaction according to Mr. Tamboly is equally illegal when BRH pledged the shares of Daksha Bhavsar alongwith those of other clients with HDFC Bank as a security for a loan availed by itself and when there was a default, HDFC invoked the pledge resulting into sale of the securities and investors shares in the market. 29. In the wake of the aforesaid transaction, Respondent No. 1 Daksha Bhavsar alleged that BRH had illegally t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2019 when BRH transferred the Securities to its own TM/CM account SMS alert was created for the first leg of transaction on her mobile number and, therefore, Respondent No. 1 was aware that the Securities have been transferred out of her joint De-mat Account and Mr. Kadam has vehemently urged that once the amount came into the TM/CM account of BRH, it became the beneficial owner entitled to transact, which did not require any authority from the original account holder and in such situation the Depository had no role to play. 30. The Depository, under the Depositories Act is entitled to enter into an Agreement with one or more participants as its Agent and any person, though a participant may enter into an Agreement with any Depository for availing its services. By virtue of Section 7 it is the responsibility of Depository, on receipt of intimation from a Participant, register the transfer of security in the name of transferee and the option is given to the person subscribing securities to either receive the security certificates or he can decide to hold securities with a Depository and when a person opts to hold a security with Depository, the issuer shall intimate the Deposito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prejudice to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, any loss caused to the beneficial owner due to the negligence of the depository or the participant, the depository shall indemnify such beneficial owner. (2) Where the loss due to the negligence of the participant under sub-section (1) is indemnified by the depository, the depository shall have the right to recover the same from such participant. 31. We do not agree with the submission of Mr. Kadam that there is no statutory responsibility cast upon the Depository, but perusal of Section 26 of the Depositories Act, would dispel the said contention as the Depository, with the previous approval of SEBI is entitled to make Bye-laws consistent with the provisions of the Act, and Regulations and in particular such by-laws provide for :- "Power of depositories to make bye-laws. 26(1) A depository shall, with the previous approval of the Board, make bye-laws consistent with the provisions of this Act and the regulations. ..... (g) the procedure for ensuring safeguards to protect the interests of participants and beneficial owners; (o) the procedure for proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, deposits, margins, penalties and other monies payable to CDSL by the Participants, Issuers, Clearing Members and Clearing Corporations. The operating instructions shall also cover the detail procedure for dematerialization and rematerialization of Securities and also reconciliation of records between CDSL and Participants, Issuers, RTAs and Clearing Corporations. The operating instructions issued by CDSL shall govern the administration, maintenance and investment of all fund(s) settled by CDSL including the corpus, accretions and contributions to the fund. 33. In the bye-laws of CDSL, the admission of Participants and ground of Registration Certificate is one of the most important function of CDSL as a Depository. Every participant who is admitted in CDSL is required to pay such amount by way of admission fees, annual fees and other fees for the due performance of the duties and obligations and CDSL is entitled to call upon the Participant to make such contribution towards fund and to pay such fees, deposits and additional security deposit or to furnish any additional guarantee or required the deposit of any money in respect of contribution to the funds for protection of inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the client's own bank is permitted only for legitimate purpose such as recovery of brokerage, statutory dues etc. Similarly transfer of Securities between the stock broker and the client's account and individual clients BO account to pool account, is permitted only for legitimate purpose like implementation of Government/ Regulatory directions or orders and the stock exchange is empowered to monitor the compliance during inspection. The detail guidelines issued by SEBI include the conduct of internal audit and monitoring of quality of internal audit reports and though these guidelines has cast the duty of monitoring the financial indicators on the stock exchanges, the standard operating procedure for Stock Brokers/Depository Participants prescribed also require the depositories to monitor their Members/Depository Participants and they are empowered to frame various event based monitory criteria based on market dynamics and market intelligence. Clause 6 of the said Circular has set out the monitoring criteria for Stock Brokers and the monitoring criteria for Depository Participants, obviously to be supervised by the Depository. The Stock Exchange and Depository as per the said ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Stock Broker has to be identified by the Depository and shall be shared with the Stock Exchanges which would include movement of shares to/from a large number of clients' Demat Account or large value shares to Stock Broker's Proprietary Account and vice a versa or transfer of large value of shares through off-market transfers other than for settlement purposes and invocation of pledge of Securities by lenders against Stock Broker or his clients. These are the precise signs which the Appellant missed to take note of as the account of Respondent No. 1 was dormant for a period of one year, but all of a sudden it resulted in the movement of the Securities to the account of the Stock Broker and subsequently these securities were pledged with HDFC Bank towards discharge of BRH's own liability, which was followed by invocation of the pledge, but the Depository, CDSL, did not identify these warning signals. In the background of the increase in number of investors complaints against the Stock Broker/Depository Participant alleging unauthorized trading/unauthorized delivery instruction being processed, and non receipt of funds and securities, it was directed that CDSL should mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stock broker and the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act 1956 and SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations 1992 provided that the Stock Broker shall segregate the Securities or monies of the client and shall not use the same for self or any other client and this is precisely what BRH has indulged into. The circular issued by SEBI cast a responsibility on Stock Exchanges, Clearing Corporations and Depositories to put in place a mechanism for monitoring as below:- 6. Monitoring with respect to handling of clients securities : a) Handling of unpaid clients' securities by the TM/CM-Mechanism of matching of transfer of securities with the securities obligation as obtained from the clearing corporation with respect to the following :- i. Securities transferred from the client unpaid securities account to the pool accountant ii. Securities transferred from the client unpaid securities account to the concerned client account. Iii. Securities transferred from pool account to the concerned client account. b) All the DP accounts tagged as "Stock Broker-Client Account' are wound up before August 31,2019. c) Securities lying with TM/CM....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Agreement entered with the Depository, it was acting within the framework of its authority conferred by the Depository. Here, the real test is whether the Agent was placed in a position enabling the fraud in the course of employment and in such case, principal remains liable. The reliance in case of Malay Kumar Ganguly (supra) to draw distinction between misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance do not take the case of the Appellant any further as such classifications is of no assistance, as non adherence to the clear statutory obligations and failure to discharge the regulatory duties, definitely give rise to a civil liability and this is what has been precisely held by the learned Arbitral Tribunal and the finding being upheld by the learned Single Judge. Had CDSL put up a mechanism timely in place and implemented SEBI mandated safeguards, the disputed transaction would have been captured and it would not have been possible for BRH to transfer large volume of shares from dormant passive investor's account, one of which belong to Respondent No. 1. Once it is not disputed that the SEBI circulars have the force of law and form an integral part of regulatory frame work governing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s shown to have arisen out of negligence attributed by BRH and for no other reason. The finding of the Arbitral Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge is based on the correct understanding of the Securities market as it is noted that BRH operated in dual capacity as Stock Broker and also Depository Participant (DP) and it executed a systematic illegality by misusing the PoAs to unauthorizedly transfer shares from 9,493 clients into its own Corporate Account without any underlying trades and pledged these securities for personal loans, ultimately causing loss of the investors holding since HDFC sold the shares upon BRH's default. The learned Single Judge rightly ascertained the role of BRH not only as a Stock Broker, but also as a Participant by holding that the Securities were moved into the account of BRH from the Demat Account of the client by misusing the PoA without the pledge request and that is how BRH manipulated the depository system in its capacity as Depository Participant. The transfers by BRH includes TM/CM account composite transaction which require the Depositories authorization and it was executed by BRH acting as an Agent of CDSL as per its own bye-laws, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of PoA are never produced before us. Since the rights and obligations of the Depository qua the Participant are clearly set out by the bye-laws and the participant was under an obligation to maintain a separate account for each beneficial owner and ensure that the Securities of the beneficial owner are not mixed up with its own Securities, the supervision or monitoring by CDSL as Depository was very much mandatory. 38. Reliance placed upon the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI in the matter of Karvy Stock Broking Limited ('KSBL') is perused by us, as pursuant to a Joint Inspection of KSDL conducted by SEBI along with NSE and BSE, the non-compliances were observed with respect to Pledging/misuse of client securities by it. The role of CDSL in the matter related to KSBL was ascertained and explanation was sought from CDSL in relation to the relevant clauses of SEBI circular of 2016 on enhanced supervision of stockbrokers Depository Participants as well as the compliance of circular dated 17/12/2018 on Early Warning Mechanism. The detail order dated 25/11/2022, a conclusion is drawn that in respect of the complaints received in respect of KSBL - DP, the not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the extent contemplated under Section 34 of the Act. The Appellate power available under Section 37 of the Act is further limited within the domain of Section 34 and it is exercisable only to find out if the Court, exercising the power under Section 34 of the Act has acted within its limits as prescribed thereunder or has exceeded or failed to exercise the power so conferred. It is not permissible for the Appellate Court to consider the matter on merits so as to find out whether the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal is right or wrong and re-appreciate the evidence which is permissible to be appreciated as a Court of Appeal. It is only when the Court exercising the power under Section 34 has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it or has travelled beyond its jurisdiction, it is open for the Appellate Court to step in and set aside the order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. But definitely the Arbitral Award is not liable to be interfered unless a cases for interference is made out and it is not permissible to interfere in the Award or the order only on the ground that a better view is possible. The Scope of Section 37 of the Act being mor....