Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of NSEL

1. Indovision Commodities Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ICL”/ “Noticee”) is registered with Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) as a stock broker bearing registration no. INZ000052033. ICL was earlier a member of National Spot Exchange Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “NSEL”).

2. The present proceedings originate from the enquiry report dated February 24, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “Enquiry Report”), submitted by the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “DA”) in terms of regulation 27 of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter be referred to as the “Intermediaries Regulations”) as it stood at the relevant point of time prior to its amendment vide SEBI (Intermediaries) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, w.e.f.

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of NSEL

January 21, 2021. The DA, based on findings recorded in the said Enquiry report, recommended that the registration of ICL as a stock broker may be cancelled.

B. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND HEARING

3. Pursuant to the Enquiry Report, a post enquiry show cause notice dated March 11, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) was issued to the Noticee, along with copies of (i) the aforesaid Enquiry Report; (ii) Finance Ministry letter dated December 30, 2014 to Forward Markets Commission (“FMC”); (iii) Hon’ble Bombay HC’s order in criminal bail application no. 1263 of 2014 in Jignesh Prakash Shah vs. State of Maharashtra dated August 22, 2014.

4. While the aforesaid proceedings were pending, SEBI passed five separate orders rejecting the applications filed by five other entities for registration as commodity brokers in NSEL matter during February 2019. Aggrieved by the said SEBI orders, the entities filed separate appeals before the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal (“Hon’ble SAT”). The Hon’ble SAT vide its common order in the matter of Geofin Comtrade Ltd. And Ors. vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 214 of 2019) dated June 09, 2022 (“June 2022 SAT Order”), remanded the aforesaid SEBI orders to decide these matters afresh within six months from the date of the said order. While remanding the aforesaid SEBI orders, the Hon’ble SAT inter alia held as under: “... 42...The matters are remitted to the WTM to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made aforesaid in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the brokers. All issues raised by the brokers for which a finality has not been reached remains open for them to be raised before the WTM. It will be open to the WTM to rely upon other material such as the complaint letters of NSEL, EOW report, EOW charge sheet, etc. provided such copies are provided to the brokers and opportunity is given to rebut the allegations. Such additional documents relied upon by the respondent should form part of the show cause notice for which purpose, it will be open to the WTM to issue a supplementary show cause notice...”

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of 5. In light of the June 2022 SAT Order, it was felt necessary to furnish certain additional documents/material to the Noticee and grant an opportunity of personal hearing, before concluding the present proceedings. Accordingly, a supplementary SCN dated February 27, 2023 (“SSCN”) was served on the Noticee along with the following documents: 5.1. Copy of SEBI complaint dated September 24, 2018 filed with Economic Offences Wing (“EoW”); 5.2. Copy of FIR dated September 28, 2018 filed by SEBI under section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”); 5.3. Amended Schedule II of Intermediaries Regulations; and 6. The Noticee submitted its reply vide letter dated August 23, 2023. Though the Noticee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing on August 24, 2023, the Noticee sought adjournment. Thereafter, the Noticee was granted another opportunity of personal hearing on September 26, 2023. On the said date, the Authorised Representative of the Noticee appeared before me through video conferencing and reiterated the submissions made in the Noticee’s reply.

7. The written submissions filed by the Noticee dated August 23, 2023 and those made during the personal hearing are summarized hereunder: 7.1. The Noticee has denied all the allegations. 7.2. The Noticee has submitted that there are no specific records/ data which have been worked out by the relevant authority to establish that it had knowingly been involved in dealing on behalf of its clients. The Noticee earned negligible brokerage on the trade executed which if there had been any malafide intention then the revenue could have been high in its case. 7.3. There is a legitimate expectation of a Stock Broker that if a product is introduced by a Stock Exchange, it must be legal and valid. A Stock Broker cannot be suspicious of conduct of the Exchanges and assume that a contract on the platform of the Exchange on which the trades are undertaken in the regular course of business was illegal.

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of 7.4. When the case involves the issue of trades, the entire trade log and order log of the scrip / contracts during investigation should be provided to the Noticee in order to produce a meaningful defence against the charges levied against it. 7.5. The paired contract which were launched by the NSEL in different commodities vide various circulars were available on the website of NSEL and so were in public domain accessible to everyone including the regulatory authorities like FMC. 7.6. No stock broker including the Noticee in its wildest imagination could have thought anything suspicious about the contracts launched by NSEL. 7.7. The Noticee has submitted that either it is the liability of the Stock Exchange for launch of any illegal contracts or the liability of the clients who have traded in those contracts. A Stock Broker is only acting as an agent of the Exchange as well as for its client and so the liability for trading in the illegal contracts cannot extend to the Stock Broker. 7.8. SEBI in the present case has not provided any material in the notice to suggest any negligence or connivance on the part and has simply stated that the Stock Brokers have participated/ facilitated pair contracts. The Noticee had relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble SAT in the matter of Networth Stock Broking v. SEBI (SAT appeal no. 5 of 2012 decided on June 19, 2012), Kasat Secutiites Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 27 of 2006 decided on 29.06.2006), Bipin R. Vora vs. SEBI (SAT appeal no. 62 of 2006), M.J. Patel Shares and Stockbrokers Ltd. vs. SEBI (SAT Appeal no. 157 of 2004 decided on 17.7.2006) and judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SEBI v. Rakhi Trading wherein it was stated that merely because the appellant acted as a broker of one of the parties, it does not follow that he was a party to the game plan of the client in executing the matched trades. 7.9. In the case of Ramaben Samani Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI (SAT appeal no. 91 of 2006 decided on 22.10.2007), SAT has specifically observed that there has to be enough material on record to show that the broker knew about the game plan at the time of executing the trade.

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of 7.10. Further, the Noticee has placed reliance on the order of Hon’ble SAT in the case of Kishore Ajmera vs. SEBI wherein it was held that there was no material to hold either lack of vigilance or bonafide on the part of the broker. 7.11. The Noticee has submitted that as per the authorities cited above, it cannot be held liable for trading in the ‘pair contracts’ launched by NSEL as in the notice except a blind allegation, no other evidence has been provided to corroborate the same. 7.12. The Noticee cannot be held liable just because it participated/ facilitated in pair contracts unless it is shown that it had knowledge that the pair contracts were illegal. This is because trading in a contract is purely the discretion of the investor as to how and in what contracts it wants to trade. It is a business decision under commercial wisdom as what contracts a person wants to trade in and the same cannot be questioned by any authority. In this regard, the Noticee has placed reliance on the judgement in the matter of Hanuman Prasad Bagri v. Bagrees Cereals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 148 CompCas 353 (cal), Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited v. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456 and I.P. Holding Asia Singapore P. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, AIR 2015 SC 274 and SEBI Order in the matter of Taneja Aerospace and Aviation Limited dated January 11, 2016. 7.13. Unless the clients who actually traded in the paired contract launched by NSEL are held liable, the Noticee cannot be held liable. This is because the mischief done by the clients is a prerequisite to prove the alleged mischief done by the Noticee. 7.14. Till date, Central Government has not conclusively adjudicated that the pair contracts launched by NSEL were illegal. The Central Government has not made any adverse findings against NSEL adjudging that the ‘pair contracts’ were in violation of the notification and the same has also not been adjudicated by SEBI. Further, SEBI does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the violation of provisions of the notification as the same falls within the domain of Central Government.

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of 7.15. The Noticee has submitted that the cancellation or suspension of certificate of registration of a stock broker, which results in loss of business as well as reputation, is a serious punishment and so must be imposed in exceptional and grave circumstances. Otherwise, the punishment will not be commensurate with its act. The Noticee has placed reliance on the judgement in the matter of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1970 SC 253), Ex- Naik Sardar Singh vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 212 and Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 2386). 7.16. While granting registration to it, SEBI was fully aware that it had carried out the trades in alleged paired contracts.

C. BRIEF HISTORY OF NSEL SCAM

8. Before moving forward to consider the matter on merits, the background facts necessary for the present proceedings are narrated in brief as under: 8.1. NSEL was incorporated in May 2005 with the purpose of developing an electronic spot exchange for trading in commodities. In exercise of powers conferred under section 27 of the FCRA, the Central Government vide the 2007 Exemption Notification, granted an exemption to all forward contracts of one-day duration for the sale and purchase of commodities traded on NSEL from operations of the provisions of the FCRA subject to certain conditions. The said notification inter alia stated that “no short sale by the members of the exchange shall be allowed” and “all outstanding positions of the trades at the end of the day shall result in delivery”. It was also stipulated that all information or returns relating to the trade as and when asked for shall be provided to the Central Government or its designated agency.

8.2. In October 2008, NSEL commenced operations providing an electronic trading platform to its participants for spot trading of commodities, such as bullion, agricultural produce, metals, etc. It is observed that NSEL had introduced the concept of ‘paired contracts’ in September 2009 which allowed buying and selling in same commodity through two different contracts at two different

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of prices on the exchange platform wherein the investors could buy a short duration contract and sell a long duration contract and vice versa at the same time and at a pre-determined price. The trades for the buy contract (T+2 /T+3) and the sell contract (T+25/T+36) used to happen on NSEL on the same day at same time and at different prices, involving the same counterparties. The transactions were structured in a manner that buyer of the short duration contract always ended up making profits.

8.3. On February 06, 2012, the erstwhile FMC was appointed by DCA as the ‘designated agency’ as stipulated in one of the conditions prescribed under the said 2007 Exemption Notification, authorizing it to collect the trade data from NSEL and to examine the same for taking appropriate measure, if needed, to protect investors’ interest.

8.4. DCA on April 27, 2012 directed NSEL to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against it for violation of the conditions mentioned in the 2007 Exemption Notification.

8.5. Subsequent to the above, NSEL filed a reply. Further, MCA sought comments of FMC on the said replies. MCA also sought certain information from NSEL pursuant to which vide its letter dated July 12, 2013, MCA directed NSEL to give an undertaking that:

8.5.1. No further/fresh contracts shall be launched by NSEL until further instructions from the concerned authority; and 8.5.2. All the existing contracts will be settled on the due dates

8.6. NSEL issued a circular on July 31, 2013 suspending its spot exchange operations.

8.7. On August 27, 2013, FMC directed a forensic audit of NSEL by Grant Thornton LLP. Further, the Union of India ordered an inspection of accounts of NSEL

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of and 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (earlier FTIL) under section 209A of the Companies Act. The EoW also registered cases against the directors and key management personnel of the NSEL and 63 Moons (earlier FTIL) and against trading members and brokers of NSEL under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”).

8.8. After analysing the trade data received from NSEL and the forensic audit report submitted by Grant Thornton LLP, the FMC passed Order dated December 17, 2013 in the matter (“FMC Order”) wherein it inter alia observed that Financial Technologies (India) Ltd. is not a fit and proper person to continue to be a shareholder of 2% or more of the paid-up equity capital of MCX. Further, from paragraph 8 of the FMC Order, I note that the DCA vide its letter dated April 27, 2012 directed NSEL to explain as to why action should not be initiated against NSEL for violation of the conditions of the 2007 Exemption Notification. In response to the same, NSEL submitted a reply vide their letter dated May 29, 2012. DCA, vide its letter dated May 31, 2012, sought comments of FMC on the NSEL reply. The FMC, vide its letter dated August 02, 2012 to the DCA provided its comments on the two main issues, which are relevant for consideration of the matter at hand, as paraphrased hereunder:

8.8.1. Short sale by members of the exchange: NSEL did not insist upon ownership of goods before allowing its members to place the sale order. FMC was of the view that all the sale transactions which are not backed by the ownership of goods were in violation of the condition of “no short sale by the members of the Exchange shall be allowed" as stated in the 2007 Exemption Notification.

8.8.2. Contracts in which settlement period goes beyond 11 days: In view of the definition of “forward contract” under FCRA, FMC was of the view that all the contracts traded on NSEL which provide settlement schedule for a period exceeding 11 days are “non-transferable specific delivery

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of contracts”. Thus, even if the 2007 Exemption Notification does not specify the delivery period, NSEL had to settle the delivery for all open positions within a period of 11 days as NSEL was allowed to only trade in one-day forward contracts and was obliged to ensure delivery and settlement within 11 days.

8.9. On September 19, 2014, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, issued a notification withdrawing the exemption granted to NSEL vide the 2007 Exemption Notification.

8.10. From the above, it is clear that NSEL had permitted contracts of various commodities having duration longer than 11 days and these contracts were in contravention of the exemption granted to NSEL. Subsequently, certain entities who were primarily borrowing on the NSEL platform through the modus of trading in the aforesaid “paired contracts” defaulted in fulfilling their payment obligations leading to a huge settlement default of outstanding contracts to the tune of INR 5600 Crores.

8.11. EoW, Mumbai, vide letter dated April 04, 2015, had forwarded an interim report in connection with the investigation conducted by them to identify the role played by the broking houses in the NSEL case. The relevant extracts of the said interim report are as follows:

“IV. Objectives of this investigation into the brokers’ role: A scam of this magnitude would be difficult to continuously occur for 3 years without some of the large brokers’ gross negligence or perhaps active participation.

The actual role of the brokers was: • To bring in investors to invest in ‘pair trades’ promising them assured returns and the investors got about 13-16% p.a. for investing in the commodity

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of • The sellers got finance at 18-20 or more % by pledging their commodity in NSEL warehouses They got brokerage from investors on the NSEL platform, and those brokers who had their NBFCs got additional revenue by financing investors for investing on NSEL. Though the matter is still under investigation, brokers have also received back from exchange certain charges collected from investors such as transaction fees, delivery and warehousing charges, etc. It is suspected that these are indirect motivation incentives for brokers to generate huge volumes. It is also possible that brokers may have benefitted from or compensated by the sellers or defaulters. The higher the trading turnover, the higher revenues for the exchange and the brokers. Therefore, both wanted to increase turnover at the exchange. In light of the foregoing, the objective of EOW in investigating brokers was to inquire whether they had been involved in any wrongdoing connected with trading on NSEL, specifically, to determine whether they participated in a) Any activities which were detrimental to the investors, NSEL, or third parties. To determine whether they had made false and misleading representations, offered inducement, financing and deliberately made wrongful assertions purely to get brokerage and facilitate NSEL in generating higher volumes. b) Whether they had any illegitimate personal enrichment, or, there has been knowing dereliction in their duties as clearing and forwarding agents towards the commodities and protect the investors. c) It was also deemed necessary to ensure that their activities were within the framework of law.

8.12. Vide the Finance Act, 2015, FMC was merged with SEBI on September 28, 2015 in pursuance thereof SEBI was entrusted with the powers to regulate the trading in commodities futures market. As per the said act, an existing

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of intermediary could continue to buy, sell or deal in commodity derivatives as a commodity broker, if it would make an application for its registration as an intermediary to SEBI within a period of 3 months from the date of merger till the disposal of such application by SEBI. Accordingly, the Noticee on the basis of an application so made by it, was granted SEBI registration number to operate as a stock broker in the securities market. In terms of the said act, FCRA was also repealed with effect from the aforesaid date.

8.13. On September 24, 2018, SEBI filed a complaint with EoW to initiate appropriate action against brokers/members of NSEL and other persons in the NSEL matter under sections 20, 21 and other appropriate provisions of the FCRA.

8.14. On September 28, 2018, SEBI gave a statement to the police which resulted into a FIR under section 154 of CrPC.

8.15. It is also pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on April 30, 2019, passed in the matter of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (formerly known as Financial Technologies India Ltd.) & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4476 of 2019) (2019)18 SCC 401 (“Merger Petition”), wherein it inter alia held that:

“….There is no doubt that such Paired Contracts were, in fact, financing transactions which were distinct from sale and purchase transactions in commodities and were, thus, in breach of both the exemptions granted to NSEL, and the FCRA…..”

8.16. Further, in judgement dated April 22, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Maharashtra vs. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2748-49 of 2022) (“MPID matter”), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while drawing reference to the presentations made by NSEL in respect of the “paired contracts” has inter alia held that:

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of “The above representation indicates that ‘paired contracts’ were designed as a unique trading opportunity by NSEL under which a trader would, for instance, purchase a T+2 contract (with a pay-in obligation on T+2) and would simultaneously sell a T+25 contract (with a pay-out of funds on T+25). The price differential between the two settlement dates was represented to offer an annualized return of about 16%. NSEL categorically represented that all trades were backed by collaterals in the form of stocks and its management activities included selection, accreditation, quality testing, fumigation and insurance. Therefore, NSEL represented that on receiving money and commodities, the members would receive assured returns and a service. Though NSEL has been receiving deposits, it has failed to provide services as promised against the deposits and has failed return the deposits on demand. Therefore, the State of Maharashtra was justified in issuing the attachment notifications under Section 4 of the MPID Act.”

8.17. In the background of the aforesaid discussion pertaining to “paired contracts” as captured in the preceding paragraphs, I now move on to examine whether the Noticee satisfies the “fit and proper person” criteria as laid down in Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations.

D. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS

9. I have carefully perused the contents of the Enquiry Report, the SCNs issued to the Noticee, the responses filed by the Noticee and the submissions made during the course of the personal hearing and other documents available on record as shared with the Noticee.

10. Before moving forward to examine charges and the evidence available on record, it would be appropriate to take a look at the legal provisions of the SEBI Act, which are relevant in the present case. It is alleged that the Noticee has violated

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of (i) regulation 5(e) of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “Stock Brokers Regulations”) read with Schedule II of Intermediaries Regulations; and (ii) regulation 9(b), 9(f) read with clause A (1), A (2) and A (5) of Schedule II of Stock Brokers Regulations. The same are reproduced below for reference:

SEBI Act Registration of stock brokers, sub-brokers, share transfer agents, etc. 12. (3) The Board may, by order, suspend or cancel a certificate of registration in such manner as may be determined by regulations: Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Stock Brokers Regulations Consideration of application for grant of registration. 5. The Board shall take into account for considering the grant of a certificate, all matters relating to trading, settling or dealing in securities and in particular the following, namely, whether the applicant, - (e) is a fit and proper person based on the criteria specified in Schedule II of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008; Conditions of registration. 9. Any registration granted by the Board under regulation 6 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely, (b) he shall abide by the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the stock exchange which are applicable to him; (f) he shall at all times abide by the Code of Conduct as specified in Schedule II; and Liability for action under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 27. A stock broker shall be liable for any action as specified in Chapter V of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of including suspension or cancellation of his certificate of registration as a stock broker, if he — (iv) has been found to be not a fit and proper person by the Board under these or any other regulations; SCHEDULE II Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers A. General. (1) Integrity: A stock-broker, shall maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and fairness in the conduct of all his business. (2) Exercise of due skill and care: A stock-broker shall act with due skill, care and diligence in the conduct of all his business. (5) Compliance with statutory requirements: A stock-broker shall abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations issued by the Government, the Board and the Stock Exchange from time to time as may be applicable to him. Intermediaries Regulations Schedule II 1. The applicant or intermediary shall meet the criteria, as provided in the respective regulations applicable to such an applicant or intermediary including: (a) the competence and capability in terms of infrastructure and manpower requirements; and (b) the financial soundness, which includes meeting the net worth requirements.

(2) The ‘fit and proper person’ criteria shall apply to the following persons: (a) the applicant or the intermediary; (b) the principal officer, the directors or managing partners, the compliance officer and the key management persons by whatever name called; and (c) the promoters or persons holding controlling interest or persons exercising control over the applicant or intermediary, directly or indirectly: Provided that in case of an unlisted applicant or intermediary, any person holding twenty percent or more voting rights, irrespective of whether they hold controlling interest or exercise control, shall be required to fulfill the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria. Explanation– For the purpose of this sub-clause, the expressions “controlling interest” and “control” in case of an applicant or Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of intermediary, shall be construed with reference to the respective regulations applicable to the applicant or intermediary. (3) For the purpose of determining as to whether any person is a ‘fit and proper person’, the Board may take into account any criteria as it deems fit, including but not limited to the following: (a) integrity, honesty, ethical behaviour, reputation, fairness and character of the person; (b) the person not incurring any of the following disqualifications: (i) criminal complaint or information under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) has been filed against such person by the Board and which is pending; (ii) charge sheet has been filed against such person by any enforcement agency in matters concerning economic offences and is pending; (iii) an order of restraint, prohibition or debarment has been passed against such person by the Board or any other regulatory authority or enforcement agency in any matter concerning securities laws or financial markets and such order is in force; (iv) recovery proceedings have been initiated by the Board against such person and are pending; (v) an order of conviction has been passed against such person by a court for any offence involving moral turpitude; (vi) any winding up proceedings have been initiated or an order for winding up has been passed against such person; (vii) such person has been declared insolvent and not discharged; (viii) such person has been found to be of unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction and the finding is in force; (ix) such person has been categorized as a wilful defaulter; (x) such person has been declared a fugitive economic offender; or (xi) any other disqualification as may be specified by the Board from time to time.

(4) Where any person has been declared as not ‘fit and proper person’ by an order of the Board, such a person shall not be eligible to apply for any registration

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of during the period provided in the said order or for a period of five years from the date of effect of the order, if no such period is specified in the order. (5) At the time of filing of an application for registration as an intermediary, if any notice to show cause has been issued for proceedings under these regulations or under section 11(4) or section 11B of the Act against the applicant or any other person referred in clause (2), then such an application shall not be considered for grant of registration for a period of one year from the date of issuance of such notice or until the conclusion of the proceedings, whichever is earlier. (6) Any disqualification of an associate or group entity of the applicant or intermediary of the nature as referred in sub-clause (b) of clause (3), shall not have any bearing on the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria of the applicant or intermediary unless the applicant or intermediary or any other person referred in clause (2), is also found to incur the same disqualification in the said matter: Provided that if any person as referred in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) fails to satisfy the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria, the intermediary shall replace such person within thirty days from the date of such disqualification failing which the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria may be invoked against the intermediary: Provided further that if any person as referred in sub-clause (c) of clause (2) fails to satisfy the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria, the intermediary shall ensure that such person does not exercise any voting rights and that such person divests their holding within six months from the date of such disqualification failing which the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria may be invoked against such intermediary. (7) The ‘fit and proper person’ criteria shall be applicable at the time of application of registration and during the continuity of registration and the intermediary shall ensure that the persons as referred in sub-clauses (b) and (c) of clause (2) comply with the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria.

11. I find it appropriate to first deal with the preliminary contentions raised by the Noticee. The Noticee has argued that SEBI does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the violation of provisions of the exemption notification as the same falls within the domain of the central government. In this regard, I note that:

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of 11.1. Before merger of FMC with SEBI, the Noticee was not required to be registered with either FMC or any other regulatory authority under the FCRA for carrying out the alleged paired contracts on NSEL. The Finance Act, 2015, recognized the said fact and also that the commodity derivative brokers should be regulated by SEBI. Considering the same, it was made mandatory for all commodity derivative brokers, who wished to continue their activities, to apply for registration with SEBI within a period of 3 months’ from September 28, 2015. Thus, by virtue of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2015, all those entities, who were functioning as commodity derivatives brokers, after having made their application within 3 months from September 28, 2015, were under the supervision and control of SEBI like any other intermediary holding a certificate of registration. 11.2. The Noticee had applied for a certificate of registration as a broker and was granted a certificate of registration by SEBI with effect from December 18, 2015. Therefore, the Noticee had become a SEBI registered intermediary from the said date and falls under the definitions of a “stock broker” and an “intermediary”.

Being a SEBI regulated intermediary, SEBI has the jurisdiction to examine whether the activities of the Noticee in “paired contracts” for its clients on the NSEL platform affects its ability to be considered as a “fit and proper person”. 11.3. Further, I note that Section 29A(2)(e) of FCRA as inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 empowers SEBI to initiate a fresh proceeding with respect to the offences under FCRA within a period of three years from the date on which FCRA was repealed. Thus, pursuant to the merger of FMC with SEBI, SEBI stepped into the shoes of FMC and was well within its powers to initiate proceedings under Chapter V of FCRA i.e., filing of the criminal complaint to EoW. I note from the complaint dated September 24, 2018 filed by SEBI that EoW was requested to take appropriate action under Sections 20 and 21 and other provisions of FCRA against the brokers/ members of NSEL and other persons mentioned in the complaint. However, the aforesaid proceedings are different from the proceedings before me. The present proceedings pertain to adjudging the ‘fit and proper person’ status specified in the Broker Regulations

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of and the Intermediaries Regulations in light of the activities undertaken by the Noticee on the NSEL platform and consequent action taken by FMC and SEBI, i.e., filing of the criminal complaint to the EoW under Section 154 of CrPC. The Noticee is obligated to maintain the fit and proper person criteria on a continuous basis and it is well within SEBI’s jurisdiction and powers to adjudge the said fit and proper status of the market intermediaries in the interest of securities market. 11.4. Moreover, post the merger of FMC with SEBI and due to Finance Act, 2015, the liabilities of the Noticee with respect to all the omissions and commissions done earlier while dealing with commodity derivatives continued to be subject to the jurisdiction of SEBI. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the submission of the Noticee that SEBI does not have jurisdiction, is without merit. 12. The Noticee has further contended that it has not been provided with the trade log and order log of the scrip/ contracts during the investigation period and in the absence of the same, it is not possible for the Noticee to provide any justification for its trades whatsoever. I note that all the relevant and relied upon documents pertaining to the instant proceedings were provided to the Noticee as annexures to the SCNs. In any case it is Noticee’s own contention that it was trading in the commodities contracts including alleged ‘paired contracts’ on behalf of its clients. The Noticee has further argued that to hold Noticee liable, it must be proved that the Noticee had participated in the illegal contracts knowingly and merely executing trades on behalf of the clients will not make the Noticee liable. Thus, as per the admissions of the Noticee in its reply, it is clear that the Noticee has indulged into trading in ‘paired contracts’ on behalf of its clients. The Enquiry Report specifically records that as per the interim EOW report, there was an outstanding settlement obligation of INR 4,29,09,535/- against the Noticee. Further, I find it relevant to refer to the finding of Hon’ble SC in Merger Petition, wherein it inter alia held that:

“We have seen that neither FTIL nor NSEL has denied the fact that paired contracts in commodities were going on, and by April to July, 2013, 99% (and excluding E

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of series contracts), at least 46% of the turnover of NSEL was made up of such paired contracts.....”

Thus, it is clear that on NSEL (other than E-series contracts) the proportion of paired contracts as a percentage of total trades amounted to 99% in 2013. It is not the Noticee’s case that the transactions facilitated by it for its clients were E-series contracts. Accordingly, by inference, transactions on NSEL facilitated by the Noticee, could not have been anything but “paired contracts”. In these circumstances, the contention that in the absence of trade and order logs, providing the justification for the said trades is not possible, lacks any merit.

13. Now, I proceed to deal with the allegation levelled against the Noticee.

14. Having established that the Noticee has traded in ‘paired contracts’ on behalf of its clients, I now proceed to examine the allegations levelled against the Noticee in the SCN and the SSCN. It is noted that the main allegation against the Noticee, as levelled in the SCN, is that by facilitating the trading in ‘paired contracts’ on NSEL platform during the relevant period as a Trading Member/ Clearing Member, the continuance of the registration of the Noticee as a broker is detrimental to the interest of the Securities Market and that the Noticee is no longer a ‘fit and proper person’ for holding the certificate of registration as a broker in the Securities Market, which is one of the conditions for continuance of registration as specified in regulation 5(e)of the Stock Brokers Regulations read with Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations as applicable at the relevant time. Subsequently, SEBI, on the strength of certain documents/material (such as SEBI Complaint dated September 24, 2018 and FIR dated September 28, 2018 etc.) as provided to the Noticee vide SSCN dated February 27, 2023, further alleged that in light of the aforesaid documents filed against the Noticee by SEBI as well as observations/ findings against the Noticee in the Enquiry Report dated February 24, 2020, the Noticee is no longer a ‘fit and proper person’ for holding the Certificate of Registration being in violation of regulation 5(e) of the Stock

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of Brokers Regulations read with Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations.

15. The Noticee has submitted that all the trades were executed in accordance with the rules and regulations specified by the NSEL and that Central Government had not raised any objections with regard to the contracts introduced by NSEL. I note that under the FCRA, a “forward contract” is defined as a “contract for delivery of goods and which is not a ready delivery contract”. A ‘ready delivery contract’ is defined as “a contract which provides for the delivery of goods and the payment of a price therefor, either immediately or within such period not exceeding eleven days”. Given these definitions in the FCRA, all the contracts traded on the NSEL which provided for a settlement schedule exceeding 11 days were treated by the FMC as Non-Transferable Specific Delivery Contracts. It is, therefore, seen that while the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (MCA) had stipulated in the Exemption Notification that only forward contracts of ‘one-day’ were permitted to be offered on the NSEL, the FMC, in its order, relying on the definition of the “forward contract” under FCRA held that the NSEL was allowed to only trade in forward contracts of ‘one-day duration’ and was obligated to ensure delivery and settlement within 11 days. Thus, 55 contracts of various commodities, having duration longer than 11 days that were executed on the NSEL were paired contracts without regulatory approval and in contravention of the exemption granted to NSEL and thus clearly not in accordance with law.

16. The Noticee has contended that the Central Government has not conclusively adjudicated that the ‘paired contracts’ were in violation of the exemption notification. In this regard, I note that in the merger petition (63 Moons Technologies Ltd. vs. UOI), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that these contracts were in the nature of financing transactions and were thus, in breach of the exemptions granted to NSEL and the FCRA. In the MPID matter (The State of Maharashtra vs. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court enlarged the interpretation and held that such transactions come within the definition of ‘deposits’ under the MPID Act. While extensively referring to the claims made on the website of the NSEL and the contents of the publicity material Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of and other investor resources, the Hon’ble Court also observed that the NSEL were advertising assured and uniform returns of 16% per annum for the ‘paired contracts’ traded on the NSEL platform where the return offered was the same across the commodities and that the return remained the same irrespective of the duration of the contract. At paragraph 45 of the said order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also depicted certain examples of ‘paired contracts’, which offered assured returns. For example, a T+2 and T+25 paired contract in Steel had the same offered rate of return as a T+5 and T+35 paired contract in Castor Oil. Thus, the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MPID matter highlighted how the ‘paired contracts’ were being marketed as an alternative to fixed deposits wherein the overwhelming majority of the sale leg of the ‘paired contracts’ which were executed were in fact short sales and further that, the commodities to back such sales were not available at the designated warehouses of the NSEL.

17. I also note that the scope of the present proceeding is to analyse the apparent impact as well as the consequences of the conduct of the Noticee as per the justification and contentions advanced and also to examine as to whether or not, the Noticee acted in a manner expected of a registered market intermediary. It cannot be denied that the involvement of the Noticee in trading in ‘paired contracts’ was neither permitted by the Exemption Notification nor by any of the applicable provisions of the FCRA. Under these circumstances, any conduct similar to that displayed by the Noticee in its trading on the NSEL platform would be detrimental to the interest of the securities market.

18. Despite the above and the discussion in the context of the facts of the case, I have examined at length the other submissions made by the Noticee and also examined whether while transacting in paired contracts, the Noticee could have been under the bonafide belief that such transactions were actually spot contracts in commodities or alternatively that since ‘paired contracts’ were offered, that meant that NSEL was offering contracts which were not resulting in compulsory delivery.

19. While Noticee has contended that it was only acting as an agent of the Exchange and its clients, I note that there are no two opinions of the fact that the paired Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of contracts were being advertised as an alternative to fixed deposit returns by offering fixed returns (approx. 16%) across all commodities, irrespective of the nature of the contract or the duration and were in fact structured in a manner which ensured that the buyer always made pre-determined profits. Any prudent person (including the Noticee, who is an intermediary and well versed with financial and commercial knowledge) would have or should have come to the conclusion that what was being offered were not spot contracts in commodities rather that they had the trappings of a financial product which offered fixed and assured returns, as has been already observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. which was contrary to the FCRA and the Exemption Notification and which eventually caused losses to the market stated to be to the extent of ₹ 5,500 Crores.

20. The Noticee submitted that it was legitimate expectation of a stock broker that if a product is introduced by a Stock Exchange, it must be legal and valid. Further, the Noticee has submitted that a stock broker cannot be suspicious of the conduct of the Exchange and assume that a contract on the platform of the Exchange was illegal. The Noticee has also submitted that the NSEL circulars launching paired contracts were available in the public domain accessible to everyone including FMC. In the undeniable background that there was a settlement default at NSEL, it is clear that there were enough red flags which should have alerted the Noticee when these products were first offered by NSEL. With the material on record, it is further clear that any prudent person (including the Noticee) would have come to the conclusion that what was being offered were not spot contracts in commodities and rather had trappings of a financial product which offered fixed and assured returns, as has been already observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra vs. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. The Noticee was expected to do due diligence on the products which it offered for trading to its clients. An assumption as to the legality of ‘paired contracts’ clearly shows that the Noticee failed to do adequate due diligence. The Notification regarding approval of contracts permitted on NSEL was in public domain. Thus, I find that Noticee failed to perform basic due diligence of the contracts offered vis-à-vis the conditions

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of specified in the aforesaid Notification. For these reasons, the Noticee is found to have violated Clause A (1), A (2) and A (5) Code of Conduct of Stock Brokers Regulations.

21. The Noticee has contended that SEBI was aware that it had carried out the trades in the alleged paired contracts while granting certificate of registration to the Noticee. It is a settled position of law that every registered intermediary in the securities market is required to fulfil all the conditions of its registration at all points of its functioning including any additional criteria statutorily provided for, from time to time. Else, there would arise an anomalous situation where an entity that has obtained a certificate of registration after fulfilling the said criteria would fail the test after a period of time and yet continue to function in the securities market despite not fulfilling the required criteria. On this premise, it can be said that the requirement of being a ‘fit and proper’ person, is a continuing ‘eligibility criteria’/ statutory requirement, which ought to be satisfied by all registered entities at all points of time. This condition is not a one-time condition applicable only at the time of seeking registration. Rather, the provisions governing the grant of registration provides that this is a condition which every registered intermediary is required to fulfil, on a continuous basis as long as the entity remains associated with the securities market as a registered intermediary. Therefore, the criteria of ‘fit and proper person’, is an ongoing requirement throughout the period during which an entity remains operational in the securities market as a registered intermediary. If the continued applicability of the fit and proper criteria to its functioning is challenged, there would exist a market where the overall interest of the investors would stand compromised. In case, pursuant to the grant of registration by SEBI, any evidence comes to the notice of SEBI that casts a doubt on the integrity, reputation and character of the registered intermediary, SEBI is well within the powers to examine the ‘fit and proper’ status of such entity based on various parameters. Therefore, even if the Noticee was found to have fulfilled the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria while granting the Certificate of Registration, in 2015, such an intermediary can still be assessed on being fit and proper at a later date. I therefore find no merit in the said submission of the Noticee.

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of 22. The Noticee has also contended that SEBI has not provided any material to suggest negligence or connivance on the part of the Noticee. Further, the Noticee has also relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakhi Trading Private Limited (supra) and Kishore Ajmera (supra) and Hon’ble SAT in the matters of Networth Stock Broking (supra), Kasat Securities Private Limited (supra), Bipin R. Vora (supra), Ramaben Samani Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and MJ Patel Shares and Stockbrokers Ltd. (supra) to submit that merely because the Noticee acted as a broker, it cannot be concluded that the Noticee knew about the nature of transactions or it was guilty of negligence or connivance. Moreover, the Noticee has relied on the judgement in the matter of Hanuman Prasad Bagri (supra), Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited (supra) and I.P. Holding Asia Singapore P. Ltd. (supra) and SEBI Order in the matter of Taneja Aerospace to submit that trading in a contract is the discretion of the investor and the same cannot be questioned by any authority. The said contentions of the Noticee has to be seen in light of the fact that the ‘paired contracts’ have been held to be in violation of the 2007 Exemption Notification by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Merger petition case. Thus, as understood in light of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the nature of the transactions being carried out on the NSEL platform was simply “financing”, whereby fixed returns (e.g. 16%) were being given by one party to the other. The same was apparent on a bare perusal of the “paired contracts” executed on the NSEL platform. Therefore, giving go-by to the terms of the 2007 Exemption Notification and attempting to camouflage the nature of the transactions brings into question, the appropriateness and suitability of the continuance of the registration of the Noticee, as a broker.

23. The contention of the Noticee that it earned negligible brokerage is equally misplaced and flawed as the quantum of such dealings is not relevant for the present proceedings.

24. Regulation 5(e) of the Stock Brokers Regulations provides that for the purpose of grant of Certificate of Registration, the applicant has to be a ‘fit and proper person’

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of in terms of Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations and Regulation 9(b) of the Stock Brokers Regulations mandates a registered stock broker to abide by the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the stock exchange which are applicable to it. In terms of Regulation 9(f) of the Stock Brokers Regulations, a registered stock broker is required to abide by the Code of Conduct as specified in Schedule II of the Stock Brokers Regulations. I further note that the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria specified in Schedule II of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008, was amended vide SEBI (Intermediaries) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2021 with effect from November 17, 2021.

25. Thus, as and when any of the ‘fit and proper’ criteria change, every registered entity is required to comply with the revised criteria, including as in this instance, the criteria as revised vide the amendment in November 2021. The requirement is not a onetime condition applicable only at the time of seeking registration. Rather, the provisions governing the criteria provides it to be a condition which each and every registered intermediary is required to fulfil on a continuous basis as long as the entity remains associated with the securities market as a registered intermediary. It is well within SEBI’s jurisdiction and powers to adjudge the said fit and proper status of the market intermediaries in the interest of securities market at any point of time.

26. The parameters provided under paragraph 3(b) of the amended criteria of Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations lay down a list of disqualifications which, inter alia, include the following: “(1)….. (2)….. (3) For the purpose of determining as to whether any person is a ‘fit and proper person’, the Board may take into account any criteria as it deems fit, including but not limited to the following: (b) the person not incurring any of the following disqualifications: (i) criminal complaint or information under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) has been filed against such person by the Board and which is pending; …..” 27. As detailed in the SSCN, FIR was registered by the EOW with the MIDC Police Station, Mumbai, against the Noticee under section 154 of the CrPC on September Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of 28, 2018. I note that this FIR is subsisting and has not been challenged, quashed or stayed by any competent court qua the Noticee till date. The disqualifications listed under paragraph 3(b) of the amended criteria of Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations are unambiguously clear and no exemption from such criteria has been provided. Once the disqualification is triggered, the ‘fit and proper’ person criteria is open for determination by SEBI. The disqualification provided in paragraph 3(b)(i) under the amended Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations has also been triggered vis-à-vis the Noticee.

28. Thus, by virtue of its conduct, trades and being a member of NSEL, the Noticee acted as an instrument in promoting and/or dealing in ‘paired contracts’ which were in the nature of financing transactions (as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred supra). By providing a platform for trading to its clients and by providing access for taking exposure to such ‘paired contracts’, the Noticee exposed its clients to the risks involved in trading in a product that did not have regulatory approval.

29. I also note that the Noticee has submitted that at the request of its clients, it facilitated their participation in paired contracts on NSEL. I am of the view that any argument on the lines that the clients demanded such access to the ‘paired contracts’, does not lessen the extent of Noticee’s obligations. The lack of diligence required to be performed by an intermediary of prudence is indicative of lack of competence and integrity while acting as a registered intermediary. Undoubtedly such activities of the Noticee not only seriously jeopardized the integrity of market and that of its investors but also SEBI’s belief in the reputation, character, competence and integrity of the Noticee and other brokers which compelled SEBI to file the criminal complaint against it as also against several other brokers. Thus, the Noticee has also attracted disqualification under Clause 3(b)(i) of the amended provisions of Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations on account of this complaint filed by SEBI and the FIR that was registered by the EOW based on the said complaint of SEBI, and the complaint remains pending.

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of 30. In the present case, the conduct, integrity and reputation of the Noticee has been found wanting on account of its involvement in trading of “paired contracts” on the NSEL platform and also for the reason that since SEBI has filed a complaint on the basis of which an FIR dated September 28, 2018 has been registered by EOW, which is yet to be finally determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the disqualification provided in paragraph 3(b) under the amended Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations stands invoked.

31. The facts and circumstances along with other material available on record clearly leads me to the conclusion that the Noticee has not satisfied the “fit and proper person” criteria specified in Schedule II to the Intermediaries Regulations. I have also taken into consideration orders previously passed by SEBI in the context of similar facts and circumstances, namely, R. Wadiwala Commodities Private Limited (order dated September 26, 2023) and Adroit Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd. (order dated September 01, 2023), wherein the registration of the said entities has been suspended for 3 months or till the said entity is acquitted by an order of a Court, whichever is later.

32. Considering all of the above, while I find that the Noticee does not satisfy the “fit and proper person” criteria specified in Schedule II of the Intermediaries Regulations, I do not agree with the measure recommended by the DA. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that a direction of suspension of certificate of registration of the Noticee for a period of three months or till discharge/ acquittal of the Noticee by a Court of competent jurisdiction, whichever is later, would be more appropriate, and proportionate to the violations brought out in the present case.

E. ORDER

33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the conclusions arrived at discussed above, I, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Section 12(3) and Section 19 of the SEBI Act read with regulation 27 of the Intermediaries Regulations, hereby suspend the certificate of registration (bearing registration no. Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of INZ000052033) of the Noticee i.e. Indovision Commodities Limited, for a period of three months from the date of this Order or till such time an order is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction discharging or acquitting the Noticee, whichever is later.

34. The Noticee shall, after receipt of this order, immediately inform its existing clients, if any, immediately about the aforesaid direction in paragraph no. 33.

35. The Order shall come into force with immediate effect.

36. This Order is without prejudice to the criminal complaint filed by SEBI in the NSEL matter and/ or any proceedings pending before any authority in respect of similar matter concerning the Noticee or other relevant persons.

37. A copy of this Order shall be served upon the Noticee and all recognized stock exchanges and depositories for necessary compliance.

Sd/- ANANTH NARAYAN G. DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2023 WHOLE TIME MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Final Order in respect of Indovision Commodities Limited in the matter of