Chandra Shekhar Reddy A vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 18.12.2020

Misc. Application No. 359 of 2020 (Delay Application) And Misc. Application No. 480 of 2020 (Exemption from filing certified copy) And Appeal No. 349 of 2020

Pawan Kumar Garg Station ke pass, Ganj Timasiya Baseri, Dholpur, Rajasthan - 328 022. ...Appellant

Versus

1.

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

2. Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited "Exchange Square", Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093.

3. Multi Commodity Exchange Clearing Corporation Limited #153/154, 4th Cross, Dollars Colony, Opp. Clarence Public School, J.P. Nagar, 4th Phase, Bengaluru - 560 078.

4. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited Choice House, 2

Shree Shakambari Corporation Park, Plot No. 156-158, Chakravarty Ashok Society, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 099. ...Respondents

Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Mr. Rushin Kapadia, Mr. Pratham Masurekar, Advocates i/b R V Legal for the Appellant.

Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Zerick Dastur, Advocate with Ms. Sneha Sheth, Ms. Archana Uppuluri, Mr. Kunal Kothary and Ms. Tanvi Gaitonde, Advocates i/b Zerick Dastur, Advocates and Solicitors and Mr. Nikhil Chandaria and Ms. Shraddha Agrawal, Representatives of Respondent No. 2.

Mr. Zerick Dastur, Advocate with Ms. Sneha Sheth, Ms. Archana Uppuluri, Mr. Kunal Kothary and Ms. Tanvi Gaitonde, Advocates i/b Zerick Dastur, Advocates and Solicitors and Mr. Nikhil Chandaria and Ms. Shraddha Agrawal, Representatives of Respondent No. 3.

WITH Misc. Application No. 303 of 2020 (Delay Application) And Appeal No. 289 of 2020

Chandra Shekhar Reddy A Ameenpur Patancheru District Medak, Telangana - 502 032. ...Appellant

Versus

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

3

2. Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited "Exchange Square", Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093.

3. Multi Commodity Exchange Clearing Corporation Limited #153/154, 4th Cross, Dollars Colony, Opp. Clarence Public School, J.P. Nagar, 4th Phase, Bengaluru - 560 078.

4. Zerodha Commodities Private Limited "Exchange Square", Suren Road Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093. ...Respondents

Mr. Rishabh Shah, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju, Mr. Pratham Masurekar, Advocates i/b R V Legal for the Appellant.

Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Zerick Dastur, Advocate with Ms. Sneha Sheth, Ms. Archana Uppuluri, Mr. Kunal Kothary and Ms. Tanvi Gaitonde, Advocates i/b Zerick Dastur, Advocates and Solicitors and Mr. Nikhil Chandaria and Ms. Shraddha Agrawal, Representatives of Respondent No. 2.

Mr. Zerick Dastur, Advocate with Ms. Sneha Sheth, Ms. Archana Uppuluri, Mr. Kunal Kothary and Ms. Tanvi Gaitonde, Advocates i/b Zerick Dastur, Advocates and Solicitors and Mr. Nikhil Chandaria and Ms. Shraddha Agrawal, Representatives of Respondent No. 3.

Mr. Somnath Mukherjee and Mr. Viraj Joshi, Authorized Representatives for Respondent No. 4.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member 4

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

1. Two separate appeals have been filed disposing of the

complaint of the appellants on the SCORES platform by

separate orders. The issue involved is the same and therefore

both the appeals are being decided together.

2. In Appeal No. 349 of 2020 the appellant has challenged

the order dated May 28, 2020 whereby the appellant‟s complaint

was disposed of on the SCORES platform. An exemption

application has been filed seeking exemption from filing a

certified copy of the order. For the reasons stated therein the

exemption application is allowed and the appellant is exempted

from filing a certified copy of the order. There is a delay in

filing the appeal and accordingly an application for

condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated

therein the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The

application is allowed.

3. The appellant Pawan Kumar Garg contended that

respondent no. 2, Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited

(„MCX‟ for short) issued a circular for commencement of future

trading in crude oil. A contract was launched on October 22, 5

2019 on future trading in crude oil for April 2020 contract, the

expiry of which was April 20, 2020.

4. The appellant Pawan Kumar Garg is an investor and

executes trades on the platform of MCX, respondent no. 2

through its broker respondent no. 4. On April 17, 2020 the

appellant bought crude oil futures contract on respondent no. 2

platform through its broker respondent no. 4 and paid margin

money of Rs. 12,22,470/-. The rules of the future contract which

are relevant for the purpose of the present appeal is, that the

contract was required to be settled in cash and not on delivery.

The contract expired on April 20, 2020 and there was a ledger

debit of Rs. 43,00,000/- which the appellant was required to pay

on the settlement price of negative Rs. 2884/-. According to the

appellant the loss in this contract occurred on account of

negative pricing. The allegation is, that no steps were taken by

MCX to deal with the negative pricing and that there was no

provision for trading at negative price on the MCX platform.

5. The appellant accordingly made a complaint on the

SCORES platform in respect of fixing of negative price for

crude oil by respondent nos. 2 and 3, alleging systematic failure

including collapse of the entire margin and risk mechanism. 6

It was also alleged in the complaint that respondent no. 2 did not

explain the possibility of the price of crude oil becoming zero or

negative nor updated its system to handle such a situation even

though they had the benefit of the circular dated April 8, 2020

and April 15, 2020. It was also alleged that there was no

provision for settling trades at negative prices.

6. The appellant Chandra Shekhar Reddy has filed appeal

no. 289 of 2020. There is a delay in filing the appeal.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay has been

filed. For the reasons stated therein the delay in filing the appeal

is condoned. The application is allowed.

7. The appellant Chandra Shekhar Reddy also bought crude

oil futures contract on the MCX platform and incurred a loss of

Rs. 10,30,000/- on account of the settlement price which was in

the negative. The allegation in the complaint by the appellant on

the SCORES platform was the same, namely, that there was

systematic failure including the collapse of the entire margin

and risk mechanism and that there was no provision for settling

trades at negative price.

8. Both the complaints were disposed of by respondent no. 1

contending that there was no prohibition in the contract which 7

prohibited negative prices and that the change in the trading

hours were based on request received by market participants due

to COVID-19 pandemic and nation lockdown.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in

the absence of any mechanism to prevent negative pricing and

in the absence of any steps being taken by MCX to deal with

such negative pricing the debiting of the appellant‟s ledger

account was wholly erroneous and therefore MCX should be

directed to refund the loss suffered by the appellants.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants at

some length, we are of the opinion that the complaint on the

SCORES platform are not meant to settle private financial

disputes between two parties. The SCORES platform is not

meant to adjudicate disputes of two parties arising out of a

contract. If the appellant is aggrieved by the action of

respondent no. 2 and / or respondent no. 3 in allowing negative

pricing in which case the forum for such settlement of disputes

is not the SCORES platform but arbitration which can be

invoked by the appellant under the agreement. We have been

informed that insofar as the appellant Chandra Shekhar Reddy

is concerned such claim was made by the said appellant before 8

the Grievance Redressal Committee which claim was rejected

on June 20, 2020.

11. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the

impugned order passed by respondent no. 1. The appeals fail

and are dismissed summarily with no order as to costs.

1. The present matter was heard through video conference

due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign

a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be

issued by the registry. In these circumstances, this order will be

digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench

and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally

signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a

digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.

Digitally signed by

RAJALAKSH RAJALAKSHMI H Justice Tarun Agarwala NAIR Presiding Officer MI H NAIR Date: 2020.12.18 17:57:59 +05'30'

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 18.12.2020 msb