SHAREKHAN LIMITED v. MONITA KISAN KHADE
Stockbroker Liability and SEBI Circulars: High Court Clarifies Directory Nature of Pre-Trade Confirmations and Client Responsibility in Authorized Trading.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:26727
Decision Date: 24-12-2025
List of Laws
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Circular dated 22 March 2018; The Indian Contract Act, 1872; National Stock Exchange (Futures and Options Segment) Trading Regulations; National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE) Regulations
- Facts: Monita and Kisan Khade, retired medical professionals, opened Demat accounts with Sharekhan Limited (the Petitioner). They authorized Siddhi, an authorized person (AP) of Sharekhan, to trade on their behalf. Disputes arose when Monita and Kisan claimed unauthorized trading by Siddhi in the Futures & Options (F&O) segment led to losses. They alleged that no order was placed by her for any F&O Trading. Sharekhan contended that the couple was aware of each trade via contract notes and text messages.
- Procedural Posture: Monita and Kisan approached the Investor Grievance Redressal Committee (IGRC) of the National Stock Exchange (NSE). The IGRC awarded a portion of their claim. Sharekhan's appeals to the Arbitral Tribunal and the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal were dismissed. Sharekhan then filed Arbitration Petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging the awards passed by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal.
- Issue: Can a stockbroker be held liable for losses incurred by a client due to trades executed by an authorized person, where the stockbroker failed to maintain pre-trade confirmations as mandated by the SEBI Circular dated 22 March 2018, especially when the client was aware of the trades? Is the SEBI circular mandatory or directory in nature?
- Holding: No, the stockbroker cannot be held liable in this case. The impugned Awards are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The Petitions are allowed.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on previous judgments, including Ulhas Dandekar Versus. Sushil Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and Erach Khavar Versus. Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd., which held that the SEBI Circular dated 22 March 2018 is directory, not mandatory, regarding pre-trade confirmations. The Court emphasized that the absence of pre-trade confirmations does not automatically absolve a client of losses, especially when the client was aware of the trades and permitted another person to execute them. The Court also criticized the Arbitral Tribunal's methodology of awarding 50% of the losses without proper inquiry into the actual losses suffered and stated that such an approach is in conflict with the fundamental policy of India under Section 32(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act. The Court stated "Profits are mine, but losses are yours' is the mantra, which Respondents attempt to propagate, which cannot be countenanced."
🔒 For Members Only