Skip to main content

Investors engaged in share tradingare not consumers, says Sebi

Sebi says such cases fall under the purview of commercial transactions and will not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act

Investors who lose money while trading in the stock market based on the recommendations provided by their broker cannot drag the brokerage firms to the consumer court, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has reiterated. Such cases fall under the purview of commercial transactions, Sebi added.
Sebi has clearly laid down the framework for investor redressal and every exchange has an arbitration panel in place to hear such investor complaints.

In a notice issued to all its trading members on Wednesday, BSE Ltd said the exchange has received a letter from Sebi regarding cases filed by clients against stock brokers in various consumer forums.

“As stated in the said Sebi letter, it may be noted that as per settled law, regular trading in shares to earn profits are in the nature of commercial transactions. Where a person engages a broker for the purpose of regular purchase and sale of shares, it falls within the scope of ‘commercial purpose’. Hence, any dispute arising solely out of such commercial transactions may not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the purpose of seeking any relief thereunder,” says the BSE notice.

The notice serves as a reminder to investors as there have been quite a few such cases in the past.

 Note: It would be pertinent to note where that the pivotal criteria is the term "regular". Any person buys from the stock market with the intention to sell one day. Therefore, it can be argued that an investor occasionally buying/selling his portfolio can still approach the consumer forum.

 Article referred: http://www.livemint.com/Money/xPetnKIo7Gbqm3lsTiBgSO/Investors-cannot-drag-their-brokers-to-consumer-courts-says.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more