Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.31 seconds)
B.S.E. Brokers Forum, Bombay & Ors. vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India & ... on 1 February, 2001 cites

Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985

343) and Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel (1985 (3) SCC 398). Applying the said principles to the facts of this case, we notice that the Board has the necessary competence to collect the fees for the purpose of carrying out the mandates under Section 11(2)(k) of the Act and also the power to collect the registration fee under Section 12(2) of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the Board has the necessary authority to collect a cumulative fee both for the purpose of regulating the activities contemplated under Section 11 of the Act as also for the purpose of registration under Section 12(2) of the Act, and the fee levied is both regulatory and registration fee leviable under Sections 11(2)(k) and 12(2) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 1450 - D P Madon - Full Document

City Corporation Of Calicut vs Thachambalath Sadalinan & Ors on 26 February, 1985

Once we come to the conclusion that the fee in question is primarily a regulatory fee then the argument that the service rendered by the Board should be confined to the contributories alone, cannot be accepted. What the Court has to investigate while examining a challenge of this nature is to see what is the primary object of the Regulations for which the fee is being collected and find out whether the Regulation in question is in public interest or not. Once the levy is in public interest and connected with the larger trade in which the contributories are involved then confining the services only to the contributories does not arise. As has been held by this Court in City Corporation of Calicut (supra). Applying the said principle, we are of the opinion that since the amount collected under the impugned levy is being spent by the Board on various activities of the stock and securities market with which the petitioners are directly connected, the fact that the entire benefit of the levy does not accrue to contributories i.e. the petitioners would not make the levy invalid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 25 - D A Desai - Full Document
1