TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the ex parte ad interim restraint order was justified on the basis of repeated failure to meet mark to market pay-in obligations and the resulting disturbance of market equilibrium.
Analysis: The appeals arose from a restraint order passed after investigation showed that the clients and commodity trading members concerned held a very large open interest in castor seed contracts and repeatedly failed to meet the mandatory mark to market pay-in timeline. Clause 9 of Annexure I to the SEBI circular dated 01.10.2015 required settlement of MTM gains and losses in cash before the start of trading on T+1 day, and subsequent payment or levy of interest and penalty by the exchange did not prevent SEBI from taking preventive action. The repeated shortfalls, the admission that pay-in could not be completed within the stipulated time, and the coincidence of those failures with a falling market supported a prima facie view that the positions were taken beyond the ability to fulfill the commitment and had contributed to disturbance of market equilibrium.
Conclusion: The ex parte ad interim restraint was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
Final Conclusion: Repeated non-compliance with the mandatory MTM pay-in requirement, in the context of a sharply falling market and concentrated open interest, justified SEBI's preventive restraint pending further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Where repeated failure to comply with mandatory mark to market pay-in obligations occurs in a market-sensitive situation, SEBI may pass a preventive ex parte ad interim restraint order if the surrounding circumstances support a prima facie inference of disturbance of market equilibrium.
TaxTMI 
