Thursday, April 23, 2026
Latest:
2026ArbitrationHigh CourtLatestLegalMarch 2026

Bombay HC – Stock Broker uploaded incorrect PAN details causing inability to pledge shares under MTF and loss to the investor on account of auction of shares by Stock Exchange

legaldeli

Unique and Interesting case of misconception of “Conciliation Report” under SEBI Circular dated 31.7.2023 as “the adjudication of admissible claim”

Paras 17 to 20(a) of the SEBI Master Circular dated 31..2023, show that the amount awarded in the report of conciliator is relevant only for determination of arbitration fees. It does not bind the arbitrator and the AT is not precluded from awarding the claim higher than one mentioned in the report.

Investor complaint against Stock Exchange – Stock Broker – Sale of Share purchased under MTF – Technical glitch in the Software

The majority arbitral award treated the statement of defence of the investor as a counter claim and granted Rs.23.30 lakhs.

Report of Conciliator whether an “award”

The petitioner issued the contract note dated 28.11.2023 in respect of purchase of 2,50,000 shares by the respondent no.1.  However, the petitioner forgot to activate the unique client code allotted to the respondent no.1 for the demat account and the mandatory pledge of the purchase shares did not take place.  The petitioner had uploaded the PAN details of the partner instead of the firm.  As a result, the Exchange had auctioned the shares on 29.11.2023 at Rs.108.22 per days. This was followed for two days.

Respondent no.1 lodged the complaint with the SEBI and the NSEI.   The Conciliator treated the proceedings as unsuccessful but quantified the admissible claim at Rs.75 lakhs.

As a matter of fact, under para-20 of the SEBI Circular dated 31 July 2023, the nature of determination made by the Conciliator upon failure of conciliation proceedings is only for the purpose of application of appropriate slab for computation of fees for online arbitration. Though ascertainment of claim value of Rs.75,00,000/- by the Conciliator was solely for the purpose of determination of arbitration fees, the Petitioner was advised to challenge the order of the Conciliator dated 20 March 2024 before the Arbitral Tribunal.

The petitioner claimed that the compensation of Rs.75 lakhs was meagre.

Judgment dated 17.3.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.390 of 2024 (OS) of  ICICI Securities Ltd  Vs. Ridhi Sidhi Investment and another

You May Also Like

HDFC Employment Contracts Jurisdiction in Mumbai Courts – Suit against termination filed in Nagpur Court – Maintainability

legaldeli

Bombay HC Upholds PMC’s Power to Levy Licence Fees on Sky Signs and Hoardings.

legaldeli

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board cannot issue binding circular outside the statutory frame work.

legaldeli

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“NDA”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: NDA does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. NDA assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: NDA does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. NDA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about NDA, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between NDA and you.

I Agree