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

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more