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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more