ASS.OF WELFARE OF DELHI STOCK SINGH & ASSOCIATES vs UOI & ORS. — W.P.(C)/17349/2004

Disposed: -- on 03rd June 2010.

Case disposed Next hearing 06-Aug-2007

CNR: DLHC010249832004

Filing Number

W.P.(C)/24983/2004

Registration No

W.P.(C)/17349/2004

Registration Date

02-Nov-2004

Judge

Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

Coram

Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

Category

FISCAL & OTHER COMMERCIAL MATTERS ( 3600 )

Judicial Branch

APPELLATE SIDE

Decision Date

03-Jun-2010

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASS.OF WELFARE OF DELHI STOCK SINGH & ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UOI & ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish KathpaliaView PDF

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Cases Listed Before Registrars

    Registrar Pawan Kumar Kalra

  4. 11-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish KathpaliaView PDF

  5. 19-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish KathpaliaView PDF

  6. 17-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish KathpaliaView PDF

  7. 03-Jun-2010

    Delhi High Court,hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul,hon'ble Mr. Justice Anish DayalView PDF

    Summary The Delhi High Court ruled that SEBI's October 10, 2003 circular imposing a penalty of charging registration fees at the highest rates (gross turnover basis) for stock brokers who missed the deadline to submit detailed turnover data was unsustainable in law. The court held that Clause (bb) of the regulations—which mandates concessional fee rates for specific transaction types—is a non-obstante clause that SEBI cannot override by imposing penalties, and directed SEBI to accept revised turnover data certified by Doogar & Associates and recalculate fee liabilities with concessional rates under the 2004 regularization scheme. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 26-Apr-2010

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

  9. 26-Apr-2010

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

  10. 22-Apr-2010

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

  11. 21-Apr-2010

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

  12. 19-Apr-2010

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

  13. 19-Apr-2010

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

  14. 13-Apr-2010

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.muralidhar

  15. 18-Jan-2010

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta

  16. 14-Dec-2009

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul

  17. 22-Sep-2009

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Pathak

  18. 24-Mar-2009

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shali

  19. 24-Mar-2009

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi

  20. 16-Dec-2008

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi

  21. 06-Aug-2008

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    No Court No Court At Present

  22. 11-Feb-2008

    After Notice Misc. Matters

    Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

  23. 06-Aug-2007

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. —

    Case filed

    Registration No. W.P.(C)/17349/2004

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Delhi High Court ruled that SEBI's October 10, 2003 circular imposing a penalty of charging registration fees at the highest rates (gross turnover basis) for stock brokers who missed the deadline to submit detailed turnover data was unsustainable in law. The court held that Clause (bb) of the regulations—which mandates concessional fee rates for specific transaction types—is a non-obstante clause that SEBI cannot override by imposing penalties, and directed SEBI to accept revised turnover data certified by Doogar & Associates and recalculate fee liabilities with concessional rates under the 2004 regularization scheme. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case