TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roker, share transfer agent, banker to an issue, trustee of trust deed, registrar to an issue, merchant banker, underwriter, portfolio manager, investment adviser and such other intermediary who may be associated with securities market shall buy, sell or deal in securities except under, and in accordance with, the conditions of a certificate of registration obtained from the Board in accordance with regulations made under this Act." 4. In our opinion, a bare perusal of section 12(1) of the Act makes it clear that only one certificate of registration from the SEBI is required even if a stock broker operates from several Stock Exchanges in the country. In fact section 12(1) of the Act does not refer to any stock exchange at all. All it states is that a stock broker can do business in buying or selling securities only after getting a certificate of registration from the SEBI in accordance with the regulations made under the Act. The expression "certificate" means one certificate because the word means one. For instance, when we say we have seen a man, it means that we have seen one man, and not two or more men. 5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stock exchange or stock exchanges, as the case may be, of which he is admitted as a member." 11. Regulation 6 of the said Regulations states : "6. The Board on being satisfied that the stock broker is eligible, shall grant a certificate in Form D to the stock broker and send an intimation to that effect to the stock exchange or stock exchanges as the case may be." 12. The above Rules and Regulations also support the interpretation which we have given, namely, that only one registration with SEBI is required and multiple registration with SEBI is not necessary for a stock broker even if he functions from several Stock Exchanges. We, therefore, do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the SEBI Circular No. SMD/POLICY/CIR-11/98, dated 16-3-1998. Clause 7( e ) refers to SEBI registration numbers. On the strength of the aforesaid Circular, learned counsel for the respondent submits that multiple registration with the SEBI is contemplated by the law. We do not agree. 14. It may be mentioned here that according to the theory of the eminent jurist Kelsen (the pure theor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and unambiguous, recourse cannot be resorted to the principles of interpretation, other than the literal rule vide Swedish Match AB v. SEBI AIR 2004 SC 4219. As held in Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 9 SCC 686, the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The Legislature is presumed to have made no mistake. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the Legislature, the Court cannot correct or make up the deficiency, especially when a literal reading thereof produces an intelligible result vide Delhi Financial Corpn. v. Rajiv Anand [2004] 11 SCC 625. Where the legislative intent is clear from the language, the Court should give effect to it vide Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Rod Rollers Owners Welfare Association [2004] 6 SCC 210. 19. In Jinia Keotin Kumar v. Sitaram Manjhi [2003] 1 SCC 730 case ( supra ), the Supreme Court observed : "The Court cannot relegislate on the subject under the guise of interpretation against the legislative will expressed in the enactment itself." 20. The rules of interpretation would come int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001] 7 SCC 358. If we accept the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respon- dent, we will really be legislating because in the guise of interpretation we will be really amending section 12(1) of the Act. 27. In Gurudevadatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 1980, the Supreme Court observed : "25. . . . It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
