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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more