<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (7) TMI 299 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261338</link>
    <description>A clearing member may be declared a defaulter under NSCCL bye laws where it remains in breach of margin and settlement obligations, including failure to replace ineligible securities and to clear settlement shortfalls. The record states that NSCCL adjusted available collateral, paid outstanding dues from its own funds, and was not reimbursed, so the conditions for default were satisfied. The pledge deed gave NSCCL power to sell pledged securities for protection, but did not impose a duty to liquidate all pledged Gitanjali shares within a fixed time or in a particular manner; that alleged omission therefore did not negate the default declaration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 06:45:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 299 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261338</link>
      <description>A clearing member may be declared a defaulter under NSCCL bye laws where it remains in breach of margin and settlement obligations, including failure to replace ineligible securities and to clear settlement shortfalls. The record states that NSCCL adjusted available collateral, paid outstanding dues from its own funds, and was not reimbursed, so the conditions for default were satisfied. The pledge deed gave NSCCL power to sell pledged securities for protection, but did not impose a duty to liquidate all pledged Gitanjali shares within a fixed time or in a particular manner; that alleged omission therefore did not negate the default declaration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>