Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 184 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

2016 (6) TMI 184 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - TMI - Restrain orders from buying, selling or dealing in the securities market - failure to comply with the pay-in obligation in relation to Castor Seed Contracts - whether the acts and omissions of 16 entities (including appellants) set out in the impugned order had disturbed the market equilibrium in Castor Seed Contracts? - whether the WTM of SEBI by ex-parte ad-interim was justified in restraining the entities specified therein from e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

prima-facie belief that the said violations were also instrumental in disturbing the market equilibrium cannot be faulted.

Repeated failure to meet MTM pay-in obligation in relation to Castor Seed Contracts is an established fact and in the facts set out herein above, the prima facie view of the WTM of SEBI that the appellants repeatedly defaulted in meeting the pay-in obligation cannot be faulted. Consequently, the prima facie view of the WTM that repeated failure to meet MTM pay-in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re responsible for the fall in the futures price of Castor Seed Contracts. However, in a falling market, if clients/brokers holding 62.48% of the total open interest of February 2016 Contract, have repeated failed to meet MTM pay-in obligation, then the prima facie belief formed by the WTM of SEBI that those clients had taken huge long positions beyond their ability to fulfill the commitment cannot be faulted.

Thus prima facie view taken in the impugned order that the acts and omissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble to pass appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as possible. - Appeal No. 81 of 2016, Appeal No. 82 of 2016, Appeal No. 83 of 2016 - Dated:- 5-5-2016 - Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member, JJ For The Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Mr. P. R. Ramesh, Mr. A. Rama Rao and Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, Advocates i/b Visesha Law Services, Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, Advocates For The Respondent : Mr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

id order, appellants have filed these three appeals. Since common order is challenged in these three appeals, all three appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common decision. 2. By the impugned order dated March 02, 2016, 16 entities including the appellants herein are called upon to file their objections to the exparte order, if any, within twenty one days from the date of the said order and also indicate as to whether the said entities want an opportunity of hearing in the matter. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd if the appellants file their objections, the appellants would also be heard on May 10, 2016 and appropriate order would be passed thereafter. 5. Appellant in Appeal No. 81 of 2016 viz. UKS Oils Pvt. Ltd. ( UKS for convenience) and Appellant in Appeal No. 82 of 2016 viz. Secunderabad Oils Ltd. ( SOL for convenience) are traders who have been trading on the Commodity Exchanges in various commodities as a part of their commodity trading strategy through the appellant in Appeal No. 83 of 2016 viz .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

through LEO at NCDEX. 7. SOL (Appellant in Appeal No. 82 of 2016) had also taken long (buy) position on Castor Seed through LEO at NCDEX. 8. It is the case of the appellants that the prices of Castor Seed started falling continuously from the month of October 2015 onwards. The price of Castor Seed fell further by 20% in January 2016. The crisis arose when the futures price of Castor Seed Contracts touched lower circuit of 4% on January 25, 2016 and again hit lower circuit of 6% on January 27, 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rading in Castor Seed Contracts all of a sudden without any notice has put UKS and SOL into severe jeopardy and in the process UKS and SOL have suffered loss of Rs. 9.5 crore and Rs. 9.9 crore respectively due to suspension of trading in Castor Seed Contracts. Even LEO claims to have incurred loss of about Rs. 19.42 crore on account of suspension of trading in Castor Seed Contracts. 10. More than a month after suspension of trading in the Castor Seed Contracts by NCDEX, SEBI by the impugned ex-p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e consequence. b) UKS and SOL had never defaulted in paying the Margins and Mark to Market ( MTM for short) settlement obligation. c) In the impugned order it is recorded that in December 2015 and January 2016 four CTMs including LEO had repeatedly delayed in making payments that became due in respect of the Castor Seed Contracts entered into on behalf of their clients. In case of LEO it is recorded that there were 10 counts of first run shortages between 05.01.2016 to 28.06.2016. It is further .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alance as can be seen from the ledger maintained by UKS and SOL. Thus, it is evident that UKS and SOL had all along healthy financial position and they had not defaulted at any time in discharging their Margin/MTM obligation. In such a case, the WTM of SEBI is not justified in passing the ex-parte ad-interim order against UKS and SOL and hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. d) Relying on clause 8 & 9 of Annexure I to the SEBI Circular dated 01/10/2015 it is submitt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e indulged in manipulative design so as to disturb the market equilibrium. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants were in any way responsible for the fall in the price of Castor Seed Contracts. In such a case, for the alleged delay on part of LEO the broker, UKS and SOL could not be restrained from entering the securities market by passing an ex-parte interim order. e) It is submitted that UKS and SOL had never failed to meet MTM obligation. It is a matter of record that at al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation to the broker. Even on January 27, 2016, when there was an abrupt market fall, UKS and SOL had not expressed their inability to pay to their broker LEO. Fact that UKS and SOL had applied their stop loss policy to curb further losses in a falling market and accordingly requested LEO to square off their positions for reasons beyond their control, cannot be treated as manipulation or fraud by UKS and SOL. g) UKS and SOL had not taken any position beyond their financial recourses and had maint .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the securities market by passing an ex-parte ad-interim order is wholly unjustified. h) There is no allegation in the impugned order that the 16 entities referred to in the impugned order, who purportedly held 62.48% of February 16 Contract are in any way related or that they were acting in concert or that there was a case of cartelization. Moreover, picking only February 2016 Contract and holding that the appellants along with others held 62.48% of February 2016 Contracts is incorrect since t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d squared off certain of their commodity positions including castor seeds amounting to Rs. 2.30 crore. In addition LEO had managed to pay Rs. 1.86 crore to NCDEX. For the balance amount, the clients requested LEO for extension of time by one day to generate liquidity and also requested for squaring off all their castor seed positions in view of the falling market. b) On 27.01.2016 LEO had sent an E-mail stating that the delay was due to interbank transactions and further increase in margin. Thou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

expressed inability to pay MTM. In fact, LEO had promptly paid all margins and MTM obligations and additional margins. Hence, the impugned ex-parte ad-interim order passed on the basis that LEO had defaulted in payment is wholly unsustainable. In any event, it cannot be said that failure to discharge first run obligation before the stipulated time has contributed to disturbing the price determination mechanism. c) For the delay in payment of MTM obligation, NCDEX has not declared the appellant t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t defaulters. e) Relying on the decisions of this Tribunal in case of Pan Card Clubs Ltd. vs SEBI (Appeal No. 254 of 2014 decided on 17.09.2014) and Kasat Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 27 of 2006, decided on 20.06.2006) it is submitted that although, SEBI does have the power to pass ex-parte interim orders in certain cases, it must do so only upon showing the existence of circumstances which warrant such a drastic measure. In the present case, no such circumstances are shown to be in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

disturbed market equilibrium and also indicated manipulative and fraudulent design to maintain the price and/or to benefit the position they were having in the physical market. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned decision and it is open to the appellants to show to the WTM of SEBI with facts and figures that the prima facie belief formed by SEBI is unjustified and in that event appropriate order would be passed by the WTM of SEBI. 14. We have carefully considered the rival submis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dmittedly, the prices of castor seed started falling continuously from the month of October 2015 onwards without any upward trend. In January 2016, the price of castor seed instead of stabilizing had fallen further by 20%. The crisis arose when in two consecutive trading sessions itself (4% on 25.01.2016 and 6% on 27.01.2016) the prices fell by 10% and as a result of hitting the lower circuit the trading came to a grinding halt. 17. Investigation carried out by SEBI revealed that 13 clients set .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

expressed its inability to collect MTM pay in obligation from its clients and asked NCDEX to square off their positions. Similarly, on 27.01.2016, other CTMs referred to in the impugned order had expressed their inability to collect MTM pay in obligation from their clients and requested NCDEX to square off their clients positions. 19. So far as LEO (Appellant in Appeal No. 83 of 2016) is concerned it is a matter of fact that on 27.01.2016, LEO failed to meet the first run obligation. 20. Clause .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he exchange shall collect correspondingly higher initial margin (scaling up by a factor of square root of two) to cover the potential losses over the time elapsed in the collection of margins. 21. From the aforesaid clause it is evident that based on the Daily Settlement Price ( DSP for short) fixed by NCDEX, LEO was bound and liable to settle the MTM obligation in cash before the start of trading on T+1 day. In the present case, LEO failed to meet that obligation on 10 different dates in Januar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

22. It is relevant to note that on 27.01.2016 at 11.14 A.M. LEO had sent an E-mail to NCDEX, wherein LEO had apologized for not entirely meeting the strict pay-in time line. It was further stated that the delay was caused largely due to the time consuming interbank transactions at their client s end. It was also stated in the E-mail that LEO is constantly working with its clients to facilitate the pay-in on time. Admittedly UKS and SOL (Appellants in Appeal Nos. 81 & 82 of 2016) are the cli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SEBI Circular dated 01.10.2015. In these circumstances, the prima facie view formed by the WTM of SEBI that UKS and LEO had taken huge long positions beyond their ability to fulfill the commitment cannot be faulted. 24. No doubt that inspite of repeated failure on part of four CTMs (including LEO) to adhere to the strict pay-in time line, NCDEX has chosen not to declare those four CTMs (including LEO) as defaulters and has chosen only to collect interest/penalty for the delay in the pay-in oblig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SEBI that inspite of repeated failure to meet the MTM payin obligation on time, the said failure has not contributed to the disturbance of the market equilibrium on 27.01.2016. 25. Fact that the SEBI Circular dated 01.10.2015 permits the CTM to collect MTM margin from the clients till T+2 working days does not mean that the mandatory requirement of settling the MTM pay-in obligation in cash before the start of trading on T+1 day can be dispensed with. It is not the case of UKS and SOL that they .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted 01.10.2015. Since such violations took place during the period when the prices of Castor Seed Contracts were falling and the trading in the Castor Seed Contracts had to be suspended, the prima-facie belief that the said violations were also instrumental in disturbing the market equilibrium cannot be faulted. 26. Argument of UKS and SOL that on 27.01.2016 when the trading halted due to circuit break down, they, with a view to minimize the losses took a prudent decision to square off the contr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

TM pay-in obligation in relation to Castor Seed Contracts is an established fact and in the facts set out herein above, the prima facie view of the WTM of SEBI that the appellants repeatedly defaulted in meeting the pay-in obligation cannot be faulted. Consequently, the prima facie view of the WTM that repeated failure to meet MTM pay-in obligation has disturbed the market equilibrium cannot be faulted. 27. The expression disturbing the market equilibrium has a wider meaning in the commodities d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version