https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328475 Repeated failure to meet mandatory mark-to-market pay-in obligations may justify SEBI's preventive ex parte ad interim restraint where surrounding circumstances support a prima facie inference of market disruption. Settlement of mark-to-market gains and losses in cash before T+1 trading is mandatory; later payment of interest or penalties by the exchange does not preclude preventive regulatory action. Concentrated open interest, admitted inability to complete pay-in within the prescribed timeline, and repeated defaults during a falling market may indicate positions exceeding the participants' capacity to meet commitments and disturbing market equilibrium. The restraint was upheld 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 may justify SEBI's preventive ex parte ad interim restraint where surrounding circumstances support a prima facie inference of market disruption. Settlement of mark-to-market gains and losses in cash before T+1 trading is mandatory; later payment of interest or penalties by the exchange does not preclude preventive regulatory action. Concentrated open interest, admitted inability to complete pay-in within the prescribed timeline, and repeated defaults during a falling market may indicate positions exceeding the participants' capacity to meet commitments and disturbing market equilibrium. The restraint was upheld pending further proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328475