Writ Petition No. 5450 of 2023 - C.R. Jain & Co. v. UOI & Others

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 5450 OF 2023

C. R. Jain & Co. }

(A Sole Proprietorship concern of }

Mrs. Chand Rani Jain) }

142-B, Katra Mashru, Dariba Kalan, }

Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006. } … Petitioner

V/s.

1. Union of India }

Through Ministry of Finance, }

3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, }

Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001. }

2. The Securities & Exchange Board of India }

C4-A, ‘G’ Block Bandra-Kurla Complex, }

Mumbai – 400051. }

3. Securities Appellate Tribunal }

Through its Registry, }

Earnest House, Nepa Marg, }

Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021. } ... Respondents

___________________________________________________________________

Mr. Neerav Merchant i/b Thakurdas and Madgavkar for Petitioner.

Mr. Ashutosh Misra for Respondent No. 1 – UOI.

Ms. Gulnar Mistry a/w Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Ms. Khushbu Chhajed, Mr. Pulkit

Awasthi i/b MDP Legal for Respondent No. 2.

___________________________________________________________________

CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND

FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 29th JULY 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 6th AUGUST 2026

___________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026CNR No : HCBM010377092022

Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

ORDER (Per Farhan P. Dubash, J):

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a

direction to Respondent No. 3 / the Securities Appellate Tribunal (“the

Tribunal”) to restore Appeal No. 298 of 2019 preferred by the Petitioner

against Respondent No. 2 / the Securities and Exchange Board of India

(“SEBI”).

2. The Petitioner’s grievance is that Appeal No. 298 of 2019, though distinct

from five other connected appeals, came to be disposed of by a common order

dated 27th September 2021 (“the impugned order”) on an erroneous premise

that the disputes stood settled. According to the Petitioner, while settlement

proposals had been exchanged in relation to the other appeals, no settlement

had ever been arrived at in respect of its appeal.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The facts, to the extent necessary for deciding the present Petition, are briefly

stated thus:

(i) The Petitioner is an erstwhile member of M/s Delhi Stock Exchange

Association Ltd. (“DSE”) and was registered with SEBI as a stock

broker under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

(“the Act”).

(ii) Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock

Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, SEBI became entitled

Page 2 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

to levy registration fees upon stock brokers on the basis of their

turnover. By Circular dated 28th March 2002, SEBI directed stock

brokers to furnish turnover particulars, duly certified by their

auditors, to DSE, which was required to verify and forward the same

to SEBI.

(iii) On the basis of the turnover particulars so received, SEBI prepared

fee liability statements and called upon stock brokers to pay the

registration fees together with interest. The Petitioner claims to have

paid the registration fees for the financial years 1991-92 to 1995-96.

(iv) According to the Petitioner, SEBI, relying upon erroneous turnover

figures, raised a demand of Rs.19,09,154/- (inclusive of interest) in

the year 2004. The Petitioner objected to the said demand, but no

decision was taken thereon for several years.

(v) In the year 2016, SEBI recovered a sum of Rs.38,63,926/- from DSE

towards the Petitioner’s alleged outstanding registration fee liability

together with accrued interest. Consequent thereto, DSE appropriated

the Petitioner’s fixed deposits aggregating Rs.38,64,927/-.

(vi) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Appeal No.298 of 2019

before the Tribunal seeking refund of Rs.38,63,926/- together with

interest and costs.

(vii) Five other members of DSE had also preferred Appeal Nos. 317 of

2018, 387 of 2018, 433 of 2018, 487 of 2018 and 299 of 2019 against

SEBI seeking substantially similar reliefs. All six appeals were heard

together.

(viii) During the pendency of the appeals, SEBI, by email dated 14th

Page 3 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

January 2021, offered to refund the registration fees recovered from

the appellants in the other five appeals. No such proposal was

extended to the Petitioner.

(ix) By email dated 8th May 2021, SEBI informed the Petitioner that there

was no proposal for settlement in Appeal No. 298 of 2019 and that his

appeal would proceed on merits.

(x) By the impugned order dated 27th September 2021, the Tribunal

disposed of all six appeals by directing SEBI to determine the

quantum refundable, if any, to each of the appellants and to DSE.

(xi) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No.

1201 of 2021 seeking recall of the impugned order and restoration of

Appeal No. 298 of 2019. By order dated 27th October 2021, the

Tribunal dismissed the application observing that such relief could

not be granted in a modification application.

(xii) Review Application No.31 of 2021 thereafter preferred by the

Petitioner also came to be dismissed by order dated 20th December

2021.

(xiii) Pursuant to the directions contained in the impugned order, SEBI

reconsidered the Petitioner’s case and addressed a communication

dated 27th January 2022 to the Petitioner.

(xiv) In the said communication, SEBI referred to its earlier order dated

10th August 2009 suspending the Petitioner’s certificate of

registration, the order of remand passed by the Tribunal, and the

subsequent order dated 23rd June 2011 whereby SEBI held that the

Petitioner’s registration fees had been correctly computed with

Page 4 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

reference to the applicable date of registration and directed that the

suspension would continue until the outstanding fees were paid.

(xv) SEBI further recorded that the Petitioner had neither discharged the

outstanding fee liability nor challenged the order dated 23rd June 2011

and had, therefore, accepted the same.

(xvi) SEBI accordingly concluded that the registration fees had been

correctly computed and recovered and that neither the Petitioner nor

DSE was entitled to any refund.

(xvii) The Petitioner thereafter filed Miscellaneous Application No. 181 of

2022, which was dismissed on 4th March 2022, followed by Review

Application No. 9 of 2022, which also came to be dismissed on 29th

July 2022.

(xviii) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has invoked the supervisory

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER

4. Mr. Neerav Merchant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner,

submits that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in disposing of Appeal

No.298 of 2019 along with the other appeals on the erroneous premise that the

disputes had been settled. According to him, the impugned order was passed

mechanically and in breach of the principles of natural justice.

5. Mr. Merchant submits that even SEBI had, during the proceedings before the

Tribunal, acknowledged that no settlement had been arrived at in respect of

Page 5 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

Appeal No. 298 of 2019. Despite this, he contends that the Tribunal proceeded

to erroneously dispose of the Petitioner’s appeal along with the remaining

appeals.

6. He further submits that grave prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner since

DSE continues to retain fixed deposits aggregating Rs.38,63,926/- towards the

amount recovered by SEBI.

7. Mr. Merchant further submits that the Petitioner exhausted every remedy

available before the Tribunal by filing miscellaneous as well as review

applications. According to him, since Appeal No. 298 of 2019 came to be

disposed of under a mistaken premise through no fault of the Petitioner, the

balance of convenience warrants restoration of the appeal for adjudication on

merits.

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 - SEBI

8. Per contra, Ms. Gulnar Mistry, learned counsel appearing for SEBI, raises a

preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Writ Petition. She

submits that no substantive relief has been claimed against SEBI and that the

challenge is essentially directed against the orders passed by the Tribunal.

9. Ms. Mistry submits that the present Writ Petition is an attempt to circumvent

the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 15-Z of the Act.

According to her, if the Petitioner was aggrieved by the orders passed by the

Tribunal, the appropriate remedy was to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of

the Supreme Court, which admittedly has not been done.

Page 6 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

10. She further submits that SEBI has duly complied with the directions contained

in the impugned order by reconsidering the Petitioner’s case and issuing the

communication dated 27th January 2022. Upon such reconsideration, SEBI

concluded that the registration fees had been correctly computed and

recovered and that no refund was payable to the Petitioner.

11. Ms. Mistry is at pains to point out that the Tribunal has finally adjudicated the

matter and has become functus officio. The miscellaneous applications and

review applications preferred by the Petitioner having also been dismissed, no

further cause survives before the Tribunal.

ANALYSIS , REASONS AND FINDINGS

12. We have considered the pleadings, the impugned order, the contemporaneous

correspondence exchanged between the parties and the rival submissions

advanced on their behalf.

13. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the present

Writ Petition discloses any ground warranting interference in the exercise of

this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, particularly when Section 15-Z of the Act provides a statutory remedy

of appeal against an order of the Tribunal. However, before examining the

rival submissions, it would be convenient to reproduce the provisions of

Section 15-Z of the Act:

15-Z Appeal to Supreme Court - Any person aggrieved by any

decision or order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal may file an

appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of

Page 7 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

communication of the decision or order of the Securities Appellate

Tribunal to him on any question of law arising out of such order:

Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that the

appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal

within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not

exceeding sixty days.

14. The preliminary objection raised by SEBI merits serious consideration. The

reliefs sought in the present Writ Petition are directed entirely against the

impugned order of the Tribunal and the subsequent orders passed on the

Petitioner’s miscellaneous and review applications. In substance, the Petitioner

seeks restoration of Appeal No. 298 of 2019 and a rehearing thereof. Granting

such relief would necessarily require this Court to reopen and reconsider

orders passed by the Tribunal after hearing the parties.

15. The Petitioner’s principal contention is that Appeal No. 298 of 2019 was

disposed of on an erroneous assumption that the dispute stood settled,

notwithstanding that no settlement had been arrived at in relation to the

Petitioner’s appeal. Reliance is placed upon SEBI’s email dated 8th May 2021

stating that no settlement proposal existed in respect of Appeal No. 298 of

2019 and that the appeal would proceed on merits. Reliance is also placed

upon SEBI’s subsequent communication dated 27th January 2022, wherein it

observed that the Petitioner’s case arose out of a dispute regarding the date of

registration and therefore stood on a different footing from the other appeals.

16. Whilst the aforesaid documents indicate that the Petitioner’s appeal was

distinguishable from the remaining appeals, they however, cannot be read

divorced from the impugned order. The Tribunal expressly recorded SEBI’s

submission that the Petitioner’s case stood on a different footing and also

noticed the rival contentions regarding the amount, if any, refundable to the

Page 8 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

appellants and to DSE. Having observed that the controversy had not been

completely resolved, the Tribunal directed SEBI to determine the quantum

refundable, if any, in respect of each appellant. Read as a whole, therefore, the

impugned order cannot be characterised as having been passed mechanically

or in violation of the principles of natural justice.

17. In our considered view, the challenge mounted by the Petitioner is directed

essentially against the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Tribunal

and not against the decision-making process itself. The impugned order

records the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, notices the

respective stands regarding the Petitioner’s entitlement and thereafter directs

SEBI to determine the quantum of refund, if any, payable to each of the

appellants. The record also indicates that the Petitioner was represented before

the Tribunal and was afforded full opportunity of hearing. The fact that the

Tribunal ultimately did not accept the Petitioner’s case, or that the Petitioner

considers the decision to be erroneous, cannot, by itself, constitute either a

jurisdictional error or a violation of the principles of natural justice warranting

interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such a grievance is in

substance, one directed against the correctness of the decision on merits, for

which the statute itself provides an appellate remedy.

18. It is also material to note that, after the impugned order came to be passed, the

Petitioner repeatedly invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal itself by filing

Miscellaneous Application No. 1201 of 2021, Review Application No. 31 of

2021, Miscellaneous Application No. 181 of 2022 and Review Application

No. 9 of 2022. Each of those proceedings culminated in orders rejecting the

relief sought by the Petitioner. Thus, the Tribunal had more than one occasion

to consider the Petitioner’s grievance that Appeal No. 298 of 2019 had been

Page 9 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

disposed of under a misconception. Having failed before the Tribunal on each

occasion, the Petitioner now seeks, in substance, to reopen the very same

controversy in the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

19. Moreover, the record reveals that the impugned order has since been acted

upon. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunal, SEBI reconsidered the

Petitioner’s case and, by its communication dated 27th January 2022, recorded

that the registration fees had been correctly computed and recovered and that

no refund was payable to the Petitioner. Thus, the directions contained in the

impugned order have already been implemented and have culminated in a

fresh determination by SEBI.

20. Significantly, the aforesaid determination/communication dated 27th January

2022 has not been assailed in the present proceedings. Even assuming that the

Petitioner were to succeed in its challenge to the impugned order, the

consequential determination rendered by SEBI pursuant thereto would

continue to operate unless separately set aside in accordance with law. The

relief sought in the present Petition, namely restoration of Appeal No. 298 of

2019, therefore, would not by itself efface the subsequent determination or

afford the Petitioner any effective relief. This is an additional circumstance

which persuades us not to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction.

21. Apart from the above, Section 15-Z of the Act provides a specific statutory

remedy by way of an appeal to the Supreme Court against any decision or

order of the Tribunal involving a question of law. The challenge in the present

Writ Petition is essentially directed against the correctness of the orders passed

by the Tribunal and does not disclose any patent jurisdictional error, perversity

Page 10 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40

WP/5450/2023

C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.

or failure of natural justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction of this

Court is intended to keep subordinate Tribunals within the bounds of their

authority and is not to be exercised as a substitute for a statutory appellate

remedy.

22. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, namely, absence of any jurisdictional

infirmity in the impugned order, availability of the statutory appellate remedy

under Section 15-Z which the Petitioner has admittedly not invoked, rejection

of the Petitioner’s miscellaneous and review applications by the Tribunal and

the fact that the impugned order has already been implemented and the

consequential determination has not been challenged, we are not persuaded to

exercise our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

23. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R. I. CHAGLA J. )

Shubham Gadhavepatil

Page 11 of 11

-------------------------------------

Order dated 6th August 2026

SHUBHAM

SHESHRAO

GADHAVEPATIL

Digitally signed

by SHUBHAM

SHESHRAO

GADHAVEPATIL

Date:

2026.08.06

15:05:36 +0530Uploaded on - 06/08/2026 Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 21:52:40Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)