advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Securities Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter ‘SAT’) directing the Appellant as well as the National Stock Exchange (NSE for brevity) to continue to grant the Respondent the “fee continuity benefit” as was available to them before the NSE decided to permit segmental surrender of membership to its members. as per Clause 4 of Schedule III, the Respondent was not an ‘entity’ as envisaged in the Regulations as would be entitled to “fee continuity” or exemption from payment of fees. The Regulation 4 clearly refers to a newly formed entity through conversion from either a sole proprietorship or a partnership to a limited Company, which alone has been bestowed the benefit of continuity. Given that the Respondent is barred by the provisions, the Appellant’s internal file notings are of no consequence and the Appellant is not estopped from coming to a contrary conclusion. The Respondent’s argument that the Appellant experienced a change of heart after the issuance of the Circular dated 28.3.2002 is untenable, because if that was indeed what the Respondent believed, it would not have written a letter requesting fee continuity on 4.2.2002, a date prior to the issuance of the circular dated 28.3.2002. Thus, the Respondent has failed to prove that it believed it was granted fee continuity, in light of its letter to the Appellant requesting the same. Further, it appears to us that the Respondent was an entity quite distinct from Oracle, with the consequence that it would be bound to pay the fee in accordance with Schedule III, Clause (a) or (b) as the case may be, and would not be entitled to claim the advantage of Clause (c). In fact, this is the very understanding of the Respondent since fees were deposited by them under Clause (a) in sharp contradistinction of Clause (c). 14 The amounts deposited by the Respondent have been properly calculated. The Respondent is not entitled to any refund therefrom. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The Interim Order granted by the Court stands recalled.


                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL No. 7607 OF 2005
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA    .….   APPELLANT
                                   VERSUS
M/s.  PREBON   YAMANE   (I)   LTD.                                       …..
RESPONDENT
                               J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

This  Appeal  assails  the  Judgment  dated  17.8.2005  pronounced  by   the
Securities Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter ‘SAT’)  directing  the  Appellant
as well as the National Stock Exchange (NSE  for  brevity)  to  continue  to
grant the Respondent the “fee continuity benefit” as was available  to  them
before the NSE decided to permit segmental surrender of  membership  to  its
members.  In response to the fee  demanded  by  the  Appellant,  namely  the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI for short), the Respondent  has
paid, albeit under  protest,  the  principal  amount  of  [pic]4,37,20,256/-
together with     [pic]26,96,590/- being the interest accrued thereon.   The
factual  matrix  is  that  on  27.5.1994,  Oracle  Stocks  and  Shares  Ltd.
(hereinafter ‘Oracle’) was registered by the NSE as a Trading member in  two
segments, that is the Wholesale Debt Market (WDM) as well as in  the  Equity
Market/Capital Market (EM/CM).  Subsequently, on 14.1.1999, Oracle  informed
the NSE that it had entered into a 50:50 Joint Venture with Prebon  Holdings
B.V. (Prebon Group), namely Prebon Yamane  (India)  Ltd.  (the  Respondent),
but restricted in respect to the WDM segment alone.  NSE advised  Oracle  to
bifurcate the WDM and  the  EM/CM  segments  whereupon  Oracle  forwarded  a
proposal in writing seeking the approval of NSE for the segregation  of  its
Membership  of  WDM  and  of  the  EM/CM  segments.   By  its  letter  dated
11.2.1999, NSE approved the proposal of Oracle for segregation  but  subject
to certain conditions, inter alia, that if the  trading  member  Oracle  was
desirous of surrendering its trading  membership,  both  the  entities  viz.
Oracle  and  the  Respondent  would  have  to  surrender  their   respective
memberships simultaneously.  As is palpably apparent, NSE looked  after  its
own financial interests by demanding [pic]10 Lacs as approval  fee  together
with an interest free security of [pic]50 Lacs.   Both  entities  were  also
required to maintain their shareholding pattern  and  comply  with  the  net
worth and all other requirements - Oracle in respect  of  corporate  trading
of the Capital Market  and  the  Respondent  in  respect  of  the  corporate
trading in the WDM segment.  The Respondent was also called upon  to  submit
its shareholding pattern.  It seems facially obvious to  us  that  even  the
NSE was alive to the possibility of Oracle hiving off  or  transferring  its
WDM operations to the Respondent without complying with all  the  applicable
Rules and Regulations.  NSE maintained this position even later  on,  as  is
evident from a perusal of its letter to the Respondent  positing  that  both
memberships,  though  vesting  in  separate   parties,   were   treated   as
‘concomitant’.  It is also relevant to underscore  that  the  Appellant  was
not privy to these negotiations.
We must  hasten  to  add  that  shortly  subsequent  to  these  events,  the
Appellant by its  letter  dated  4.4.1999  to  the  Respondent  had  granted
registration to it “as a stock broker”.   The Appellant made its  permission
conditional inter alia, upon payment of fees for  registration  provided  in
the Securities and Exchange Board of India [Stock-Brokers  and  Sub-Brokers]
Regulations, 1992, the salient parts of which we shall extract for  ease  of
reference.  However, the  relevant  terms  contained  in  the  letter  dated
4.4.1999 are these -

2  d)       It shall pay the amount fees  for  registration  in  the  manner
provided in the Securities and Exchange Board of India  [Stock  Brokers  and
Sub Brokers] Regulations, 1992; and

5.    You are now, in terms of clause [d] of  the  conditions  of  grant  of
registration certificate, required  to  pay  the  fees  in  accordance  with
regulation 10[1] read with  Schedule-III  of  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Board of India [Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers] Regulations, 1992  and  remit
the same through the stock exchange of which you  are  a  member.   All  the
stock exchange have been separately given necessary instructions  in  regard
to collection of fees from the stock brokers and remittance thereof  to  the
Board.


3      In this continuum NSE, in its letter dated 30.1.2002, again  conveyed
to the Respondent that both the memberships,  though  vesting  in  different
entities,  were  ‘concomitant’.  This  reiterated  stand  of  the  NSE   was
submitted by the Respondent to the Appellant with a  request  to  grant  fee
continuity benefit on the basis of the facts of the case. The Appellant  has
admitted that on receipt of this request from the  Respondent,  it  recorded
in its file notings that the  two  membership  cards  could  be  treated  as
composite and that the turnover of the two cards may be taken  together  for
the purpose of turnover fees.  It is not  in  dispute  that  till  2003  the
Respondent had been availing of  the  benefits  permissible  under  the  fee
continuity provisions. This position was also accepted by the Appellant,  as
both the membership cards were treated as composite  and  ‘concomitant’  and
the turnover of the two cards  of  Oracle  and  the  Respondent  were  taken
together on the predication that  the  Respondent’s  WDM  membership  was  a
continuation of WDM segment of Oracle’s membership.

4     On 18.9.2003, the Respondent applied to the NSE for membership in  the
Derivatives Segment which the  NSE,  as  per  procedure,  forwarded  to  the
Appellant for its  approval.   On  24.6.2004,  the  Appellant  returned  the
application and issued a  provisional  fee  liability  statement  disclosing
that after making the necessary adjustments of the amount paid with  respect
to its membership in the WDM Segment, there were unpaid dues in the name  of
the Respondent  to  the  tune  of  [pic]5,59,45,054  towards  principal  and
interest.  It was indicated that the application  may  be  resubmitted  only
after payment of the outstanding fees.  In its  letter  dated  23.8.2004  to
the Respondent, NSE clarified  that  although  segmental  surrender  of  the
trading  membership  was  permissible   since   December,   2002,   it   had
nevertheless to be kept in perspective that when the Respondent  and  Oracle
had made the subject proposal in January,  1999,  it  was  accepted  on  the
condition that “should any one of the entities  decide  to  surrender  their
membership, then both  the  entities  have  to  surrender  their  respective
membership simultaneously”.

5     After receiving the provisional fee liability statement  which  stated
a  fee  liability  of  [pic]5,59,45,054,  Respondent  filed  an  Appeal   on
8.11.2004 under Section 15T of the SEBI Act, 1992.  This  was  contested  by
the  Appellant  before  the  Securities  Appellate  Tribunal  (SAT),   which
observed that at the time  that  NSE  had  granted  fee  continuity  to  the
Respondent, there was no provision for segmental surrender, as a  result  of
which,  subject  to  certain  conditions,  fee  continuity  was  granted  to
Respondent despite it being a new entity. The SAT held that this letter  did
not have the effect of revocation or cancellation of the earlier  conditions
which were specifically imposed while granting  assignment  of  WDM  Segment
from Oracle to the Respondent.  Counsel for the Respondent  brought  to  the
notice of the SAT  that  the  Respondent  had  already  paid,  albeit  under
protest pending disposal of the appeal, a sum  of  [pic]4,37,20,256  towards
the principal  amount  of  the  Appellant’s  claim  and  a  further  sum  of
[pic]26,96,590 as interest. However,  the  SAT  directed  the  Appellant  to
refund both the amounts to the Respondent.   Hence, the present Appeal.

6     Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has relied on  Regulation  10
and Schedule III of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and  Sub  Brokers)  Regulations,
1992, which are reproduced for the facility of reference:
10. (1) Every applicant eligible for grant of a certificate shall  pay  such
fees and in such manner as specified in Schedule III or  Schedule  IIIA,  as
the case may be: Provided that the  Board  may  on  sufficient  cause  being
shown permit the stockbroker to pay such fees at any time before the  expiry
of six months from the date on which such fees become due.
(2) Where a stock-broker fails to pay the fees  as  provided  in  Regulation
10, the Board may suspend the registration certificate, whereupon the stock-
broker shall cease to buy, sell or deal in securities as a stock-broker.





                                SCHEDULE III
                                Regulation 10

Fees to be paid by the Stock Broker.

1. Every stock broker shall subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 of  this  Schedule
pay registration fees in the manner set out below :
(a) where the annual turnover does not exceed rupees one  crore  during  any
financial year, a sum of rupees five thousand for each financial year;
(b) where the annual turnover of the stock-broker exceeds rupees  one  crore
during any financial year, a sum of rupees five thousand plus one  hundredth
of one per cent of the turnover in excess  of  rupees  one  crore  for  each
financial year;
xxx         xxx        xxx

(c) After the expiry of five  financial  years  from  the  date  of  initial
registration as a stock-broker, he shall pay a sum of rupees  five  thousand
for every block of five financial years commencing from the sixth  financial
year  after  the  date  of  grant  of  initial  registration  to  keep   his
registration in force.  (currently deleted)
       xxx       xxx        xxx

4. Where a corporate entity has been formed by converting the individual  or
partnership membership card of the exchange, such corporate entity shall  be
exempted from payment  of  fee  for  the  period  for  which  the  erstwhile
individual or partnership member, as the case may be, has already  paid  the
fees subject to the condition  that  the  erstwhile  individual  or  partner
shall be the whole-time director of the corporate member  so  converted  and
such director will continue to hold a minimum of 40 per cent shares  of  the
paid-up equity capital of the corporate entity for  a  period  of  at  least
three years from the date of such conversion.
Explanation:  It  is  clarified  that  the  conversion  of   individual   or
partnership membership card of the exchange into corporate entity  shall  be
deemed to be in  continuation  of  the  old  entity  and  no  fee  shall  be
collected again from the converted  corporate  entity  for  the  period  for
which the erstwhile entity has paid the fee as per the regulations.

7       The learned senior Counsel for the Appellant has  contended  that  a
membership of the Stock Exchange is an essential  pre-requisite,  for  which
the fee prescribed in Regulation 10 is payable by  every  such  member.  The
amount that is payable as fee is determined  as  per  the  provisions  under
Schedule III. Emphasis has been placed on Clause 4 of Schedule  III  (supra)
as it provides the only exception to the payment  of  fees.    Facially,  it
appears to us, this exception has been carved out only  for  the  enablement
of persons who are vulnerable to unlimited personal liability in respect  of
their business debts, to avail of the advantages of  converting  their  mode
of  transacting  business  into  a  corporate   structure,   provided   this
conversion is not misused to  essentially  transfer  the  business  and  yet
escape payment of transfer fees; hence the insistence of retention of  forty
per cent share holding.  It also manifests that  for  all  other  transfers,
fees are payable to the Appellant, which depends on  these  collections  for
defraying  its  manifold  expenditures.   The  legal  propriety   of   these
pecuniary demands by SEBI have received the attention of the Court and  have
been found proper in B.S.E. Brokers Forum vs. SEBI (2001) 3 SCC 482.

8       Reliance has also been placed on letter  dated  4.4.1999  issued  by
the Appellant to the Respondent, by which a certificate of registration  was
issued to the  Respondent  subject,  inter  alia,  to  condition  (d)  which
provides that the Respondent and similarly situated entities shall  pay  the
amount of fees for registration in the manner provided in SEBI (Brokers  and
Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992. This letter also  requested  the  Respondent
to study the Rules and Regulations carefully.  Learned  Senior  Counsel  for
the  Appellant  contended  that  the  Respondent  could   not   claim   “fee
continuity” on the basis of internal file notings. Reliance has been  placed
on the well  entrenched  legal  principle  that  estoppel  has  no  efficacy
against  a  statute.  Sethi  Auto  Service  Station  vs.  Delhi  Development
Authority 2009 (1) SCC 180 clarifies this position thus -
13. Thus, the first  question  arising  for  consideration  is  whether  the
recommendation of the Technical Committee vide minutes dated 17th May,  2002
for re-sitement of appellants petrol  pumps  constitutes  an  order/decision
binding on the DDA?

14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental  file  do  not  have
the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer  is  an
expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more  than  an  opinion
by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other  officials  of
the department and for the benefit of the final  decision-making  authority.
Needless to add that internal notings are not meant  for  outside  exposure.
Notings in the file  culminate  into  an  executable  order,  affecting  the
rights of the parties,  only  when  it  reaches  the  final  decision-making
authority  in  the  department;  gets  his  approval  and  the  final  order
is communicated to the person concerned.

15.  In Bachhittar  Singh v. The  State  of  Punjab AIR  1963  SC   395,   a
Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the effect  of
an order passed by a Minister on a file, which order  was  not  communicated
to  the  person  concerned.   Referring   to   the   Article 166(1) of   the
Constitution, the Court held that order of the Minister could not amount  to
an order by the State Government unless it was expressed in the name of  the
Rajpramukh, as required by the said Article and  was  then  communicated  to
the party concerned.  The  court  observed  that  business  of  State  is  a
complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of  a
large number of officials and authorities. Before an action is taken by  the
authority concerned in the name of the  Rajpramukh,  which  formality  is  a
constitutional necessity, nothing done would amount  to  an  order  creating
rights or casting liabilities to third parties.  It  is  possible,  observed
the Court, that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at  a
particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite  a
different opinion which may be opposed  to  the  earlier  opinion.  In  such
cases, which of the two opinions can be  regarded  as  the  "order"  of  the
State Government? It was  held  that  opinion  becomes  a  decision  of  the
Government only when it is communicated to the person concerned.

16. To the like effect are the observations of  this  Court  in Laxminarayan
R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of  Maharashtra  and  Anr. 2003  (3)  SCR  409,
wherein it was said that a right created  under  an  order  of  a  statutory
authority must be communicated to the person concerned so as  to  confer  an
enforceable right.


9        The  manner  in  which  the  Respondent  understood  its  role  and
participation in the Wholesale Debt Market (WDM) segment along  with  Oracle
is comprehensively contained in the Respondent’s letter  dated  February  4,
2002.  (This letter, although copiously relied upon by the  parties  in  the
course of argument was not available on the Court records.  On 18.9.2015  we
called upon the Appellant to furnish a copy thereof which was  done  by  its
learned Senior counsel who has assured us that copies  thereof  had  already
been served on  the  learned  counsel  for  the  Respondent)   We  think  it
appropriate to reproduce the contents thereof as it is a  summation  of  the
case of the Respondent:
      “The National Stock Exchange (NSE) was formed in 1993-94 with  a  view
to promote the Debt Market and Capital Markets.  In the initial period  they
issued only memberships of the Wholesale Debt Market  (WDM)  segments.  M/s.
Oracle Stocks and Shares  Limited  (Oracle)  applied  for  and  was  granted
registration of the WDM segment of the NSE.  Subsequently,  the  NSE  issued
membership in the  Equity  Market  segment  wherein  the  members  who  were
holding membership  of  the  WDM  segment  were  automatically  entitled  to
membership in this segment by paying an additional deposit.
      Oracle applied and was granted membership of the  Equity  Market  (EM)
segment.  NSE did not issue a new registration  number  to  Oracle  and  the
company  continued  to  do  business  in  both  the  segments.   Thus,   the
memberships of the WDM and the EM segments were treated  as  concurrent  and
there was no fresh registration with SEBI separately for the EM segment.
      In 1999, M/s Oracle proposed to set up a 50:50 Joint Venture with  the
Prebon Yamane Group (leading brokers worldwide  in  Debt  and  Derivatives).
Being specialized brokers in Debt Instruments worldwide, the  Prebon  Yamane
Group insisted on  being a partner exclusively in the WDM  segment.   Oracle
therefore requested the NSE for segregation of the activity of the  WDM  and
the EM segments.  During that period, the NSE, as a matter  of  policy,  was
not issuing separate memberships for WDM  and  EM.   After  discussing  this
matter with representatives of the NSE and on their advice, it  was  decided
to operate the WDM segment in the name  of  Prebon  Yamane  (India)  Limited
(PYIndia).   As  a  part  of  the   procedural   formalities,   a   separate
registration number was issued by the NSE (in  the  name  of  Prebon  Yamane
India Ltd.).  Oracle would continue to hold 50% of  the  subscribed  capital
in the new entity.
      Although Oracle and  PYIndia  were  given  two  separate  registration
numbers for EM and WDM respectively, the NSE did not collect the deposit  of
Rs.15 million which it  would  normally  have  done  for  new  WDM  members.
Instead, the  NSE  merely  transferred  (without  refunding  the  amount  to
Oracle) a part of the total deposits of Oracle, amounting to Rs.10  million,
in favour of PYIndia.  PYIndia did not bring in fresh deposits for  the  WDM
membership of NSE.
      Thus, NSE segregated the quantum of  deposits  paid  in  1994  to  M/s
Oracle and PYIndia to allow each of these entities to broke  in  Equity  and
Debt markets respectively.  It was also stipulated by the NSE  that  neither
of these entities can surrender one of the  memberships  without  surrending
the other.  Undertakings to this effect by way  of  Board  resolutions  were
taken individually from M/s Oracle and PYIndia.  Thus, in essence,  the  NSE
treated both these companies as one composite member with the same  promoter
group.
      The NSE treats the induction of the Prebon Group  and  the  consequent
assignment of the WDM segment of Oracle  Stocks  &  Shares  Ltd.  to  Prebon
Yamane India Ltd. as a continuation of the original WDM membership that  was
granted to M/s Oracle Stocks & Shares Ltd. The  view  of  the  NSE  in  this
regard, confirming that both the memberships are  concomitant,  is  enclosed
herewith.
      In view of the facts mentioned  above  and  the  NSE’s  view  in  this
regard, we would request you to give the status of  fee  continuity  to  the
composite membership taken by M/s Oracle and PYIndia.
      In other words, if Oracle has paid turnover fees from  1994,  and  the
broking business has commenced from 1994,  any  fees  be  levied  in  either
Oracle and/or PYIndia for the balance period, as a composite entity.”

10    Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent has contended that  transfer
from one juristic person to another is not the  appropriate  test  and  that
since  the  Regulations  employ  the  term  “entity”,  it  is  necessary  to
determine whether the entities are essentially the same. Senior Counsel  has
submitted that since Oracle, who was an existing member, had a 50% stake  in
the Respondent, in  effect  the  Respondent  was  another  manifestation  or
avatar of Oracle. Further, the Appellant had conducted  inspections  of  the
Respondent but had not raised any issue or recorded any objections  at  that
time.   Reliance has been placed on the letter  dated  30.1.2002  issued  by
the NSE to the Respondent, which had stated that as per the policies of  the
NSE, segmental surrender  of  trading  membership  was  not  permitted,  and
therefore the assignment of WDM segment to the Respondent has  been  treated
as a continuation of the WDM  membership  that  was  originally  granted  to
Oracle.   It has been strenuously contended that the Appellant had a  change
of mind and heart  consequent  upon  the  issuance  of  its  Circular  dated
28.3.2002 which stated that in case a broker had more than one  registration
certificate from any stock exchange, he would be required  to  pay  fees  as
per the Regulations for  each  and  every  certificate  that  he  held.  The
Circular further stated that in the event  of  a  broker  holding  only  one
Registration  Certificate  but  more  than  one  card   on   any   Exchange,
registration fee would be payable on the registration  certificate  and  not
on the number of cards held by the broker, and the broker’s  turnover  would
be reckoned as the aggregate turnover of all cards.  It  appears  that  this
provision had been relied upon in the Judgment  dated  3.6.2010  in  WP  (C)
No.17349/2004, which was struck down by the Delhi High Court in  Association
for Welfare of Delhi Stock  Brokers  vs.  Union  of  India,  and  an  Appeal
thereagainst is pending before this Court.   However,  we  find  that  issue
which were in contemplation in those proceeding are dissimilar  to  what  we
have in hand.

11    Reliance has also been placed on the affidavit filed by the  Appellant
before the SAT.  Therein the Appellant  admitted  that  the  Respondent  had
applied for fee continuity vide letter dated  4.2.2002  which  had  enclosed
the letter of  the  NSE  confirming  that  both  the  memberships  had  been
considered concomitant by it.  The Appellant, based on  the  same,  approved
in the file that the two  cards  could  be  treated  as  composite  for  all
practical purposes and the turnover of the two cards may be  taken  together
for the purpose of ad-valorem fee.  We have already noted  that  Sethi  Auto
Service Station enunciates that file notings cannot be relied upon with  the
intent of binding the concerned Authority or Department.

12    Counsel for the Appellant has pointed out that the Respondent has  not
paid fee as per Schedule III, Clause 1(c).  The  Respondent  only  paid  the
basic fee indicating that its  turnover  for  the  financial  year  was  not
beyond [pic]1 Crore. However, the fixed basic fee of [pic]5000 was  paid  by
the Respondent in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Had the  Respondent  indeed  believed
that it had been granted continuity, then as per Clause 1(c)  of  Regulation
10, the Respondent would have paid [pic]5000 only once, for the block  of  5
years.   Furthermore,  to  prove  that   the   Respondent   was   under   no
misconception with regard to it not having been  granted  “fee  continuity”,
reference was made to two letters dated 4.2.2002 and 18.9.2003.  Both  these
letters were  applications  seeking  grant  of  fee  continuity.  Thus,  the
Respondent was never under an understanding that it  had  been  granted  fee
continuity.

13    After considering the submissions of the learned  Senior  Counsel  for
both parties and appreciating the facts of the case, it  is  evident  to  us
that as per Clause 4 of Schedule III, the Respondent was not an ‘entity’  as
envisaged in the Regulations as would be entitled  to  “fee  continuity”  or
exemption from payment of fees.  The Regulation 4 clearly refers to a  newly
formed entity through conversion from either  a  sole  proprietorship  or  a
partnership to a limited Company, which alone has been bestowed the  benefit
of continuity. Given that the Respondent is barred by  the  provisions,  the
Appellant’s internal file notings are of no consequence  and  the  Appellant
is not estopped from coming  to  a  contrary  conclusion.  The  Respondent’s
argument that  the  Appellant  experienced  a  change  of  heart  after  the
issuance of the Circular dated 28.3.2002 is untenable, because if  that  was
indeed what the Respondent believed, it would  not  have  written  a  letter
requesting fee continuity on 4.2.2002, a date prior to the issuance  of  the
circular dated 28.3.2002. Thus, the Respondent has failed to prove  that  it
believed it was granted fee continuity,  in  light  of  its  letter  to  the
Appellant  requesting  the  same.  Further,  it  appears  to  us  that   the
Respondent was an entity quite distinct from Oracle,  with  the  consequence
that it would be bound to pay the  fee  in  accordance  with  Schedule  III,
Clause (a) or (b) as the case may be, and would not  be  entitled  to  claim
the advantage of Clause (c).  In fact, this is  the  very  understanding  of
the Respondent since fees were deposited by them under Clause (a)  in  sharp
contradistinction of Clause  (c).
14     The  amounts  deposited  by  the  Respondent   have   been   properly
calculated.  The Respondent is not entitled to any refund  therefrom.    The
Appeal is accordingly allowed.  The  Interim  Order  granted  by  the  Court
stands recalled.
…………………………………J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

…………………………………J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi,
November 03, 2015.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.