Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (6) TMI 1048 - Securities / SEBI
Head Note / Extract:
Investment Adviser entitled to charge fee for providing investment advice from a client in the manner as specified by the Board - fixation of a maximum cap of fee which may be charged by Investment Advisor violates any fundamental rights of the petitioners - HELD THAT:- In Ehsan Khalid Vs. Union of India [2013 (10) TMI 851 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court had held that where there is a challenge to a Government policy, particularly economic policy, Court would not interfere in such policy matters in exercise of its power of judicial review unless such policy is found to be grossly arbitrary or unfair or unreasonable or irrational or violative of Constitutional provisions or contrary to statutory provision. We are of the opinion that it is not the function of this Court to sit in judgment over a matter of economic policy such as that contained in the Regulation 15A and the Circular dt.23.09.2020 though, this Court might feel that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical when such policy is not patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. SEBI is an expert body constituted to deal with the securities market and is empowered to regulate activities of various entities including Investment Advisors while protecting the interest of investors. From a reading of Circular dt.23.9.2020, it is clear that the parties i.e. the client and the Investment Advisors are given a choice to choose between either a fixed fee mode or fee fixed on the basis of AUA. In the later mode, the fee is chargeable on the basis of AUA per annum. We do not find anything arbitrary or illogical in this arrangement which would prevent Investment Advisors from giving proper advice to clients or dis-incentivising them.