https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328475 Repeated failure to meet mandatory mark to market pay-in obligations can justify preventive action where the surrounding market conditions indicate possible disturbance of market equilibrium. The article notes that Clause 9 of Annexure I to the SEBI circular dated 01.10.2015 required settlement of MTM gains and losses in cash before trading on T+1 day, and that later payment through the exchange did not prevent regulatory intervention. On the stated facts, the large open interest, admitted inability to meet the stipulated timeline, and the falling market supported a prima facie basis for an ex parte ad interim restraint pending further proceedings. en-us Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jun 2016 14:34:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328475 Repeated failure to meet mandatory mark to market pay-in obligations can justify preventive action where the surrounding market conditions indicate possible disturbance of market equilibrium. The article notes that Clause 9 of Annexure I to the SEBI circular dated 01.10.2015 required settlement of MTM gains and losses in cash before trading on T+1 day, and that later payment through the exchange did not prevent regulatory intervention. On the stated facts, the large open interest, admitted inability to meet the stipulated timeline, and the falling market supported a prima facie basis for an ex parte ad interim restraint pending further proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328475