Uks Oils Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Order Reserved On: 03.05.2016 Date of Decision: 05.05.2016

Appeal No. 81 of 2016

UKS Oils Pvt. Ltd. 203, Diamond House, Panjagutta, Behind Topaz Building, Hyderabad- 500 082 ...Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Mr. P. R. Ramesh, Mr. A. Rama Rao and Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, Advocates i/b Visesha Law Services for the Appellant.

Mr. J. P. Sen Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

WITH Appeal No. 82 of 2016

Secunderabad Oils Ltd. 203, Diamond House, Panjagutta, Behind Topaz Building, Hyderabad- 500 082 ...Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Mr. P. R. Ramesh, Mr. A. Rama Rao and Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, Advocates i/b Visesha Law Services for the Appellant.

Mr. J. P. Sen Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent. 2

AND Appeal No. 83 of 2016

Leo Global Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 203, Diamond House, Panjagutta, Behind Topaz Building, Hyderabad- 500 082 ...Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Mr. P. R. Ramesh, Mr. A. Rama Rao, Ms. Sabeena Mahadik and Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, Advocates i/b Visesha Law Services for the Appellant.

Mr. J. P. Sen Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar

1. By a common ex-parte ad-interim order dated March 02, 2016 the

Whole Time Member ("WTM" for short) of Securities and Exchange

Board of India ("SEBI" for short) has restrained 16 entities including the

three appellants herein from buying, selling or dealing in the securities

market, either directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever till further

direction. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appellants have filed

these three appeals. Since common order is challenged in these three

appeals, all three appeals are heard together and disposed of by this

common decision. 3

2. By the impugned order dated March 02, 2016, 16 entities including

the appellants herein are called upon to file their objections to the ex-

parte order, if any, within twenty one days from the date of the said order

and also indicate as to whether the said entities want an opportunity of

hearing in the matter.

3. Instead of filing their objections to the impugned ex-parte order,

the appellants have chosen to challenge the said order before this

Tribunal, basically on ground that the appellants are not defaulters and

there were no circumstances which warranted SEBI to pass ex-parte ad-

interim order against the appellants.

4. Counsel for SEBI submitted that in the present case, in respect of

the entities which have filed their objections to the ex-parte order,

personal hearing is fixed on May 10, 2016 and if the appellants file their

objections, the appellants would also be heard on May 10, 2016 and

appropriate order would be passed thereafter.

5. Appellant in Appeal No. 81 of 2016 viz. UKS Oils Pvt. Ltd.

('UKS' for convenience) and Appellant in Appeal No. 82 of 2016 viz.

Secunderabad Oils Ltd. ("SOL" for convenience) are traders who have

been trading on the Commodity Exchanges in various commodities as a

part of their commodity trading strategy through the appellant in Appeal

No. 83 of 2016 viz. LEO Global Commodities Pvt. Ltd., ("LEO" for

convenience). LEO is a Commodities Trading Member ("CTM" for

short) of the National Commodities and Derivatives Exchange Limited

("NCDEX" for short) 4

6. UKS (Appellant in Appeal No. 81 of 2016) had sold 20,000 MTs

of Castor Seeds in the physical market for delivery in January/February

2016 at a price ranging from ` 36,400 per MT to ` 43,400 per MT. In

order to hedge its price risk against such sale, UKS had taken a long

(buy) position on Castor Seed through LEO at NCDEX.

7. SOL (Appellant in Appeal No. 82 of 2016) had also taken long

(buy) position on Castor Seed through LEO at NCDEX.

8. It is the case of the appellants that the prices of Castor Seed started

falling continuously from the month of October 2015 onwards. The price

of Castor Seed fell further by 20% in January 2016. The crisis arose

when the futures price of Castor Seed Contracts touched lower circuit of

4% on January 25, 2016 and again hit lower circuit of 6% on January 27,

2016. In these circumstances, UKS and SOL deemed it appropriate to

square off the contracts and instructed the CTM (LEO) to do the needful.

Even NCDEX realized that the steps taken by it to mitigate and regulate

the risk and prices were not having any impact on the irrational price fall

and therefore NCDEX by its circular suspended the trading in Castor

Seed Contracts at the close of business hours on January 27, 2016.

9. Counsel for UKS and SOL submit that the action of NCDEX in

suspending the trading in Castor Seed Contracts all of a sudden without

any notice has put UKS and SOL into severe jeopardy and in the process

UKS and SOL have suffered loss of ` 9.5 crore and ` 9.9 crore

respectively due to suspension of trading in Castor Seed Contracts. Even 5

LEO claims to have incurred loss of about ` 19.42 crore on account of

suspension of trading in Castor Seed Contracts.

10. More than a month after suspension of trading in the Castor Seed

Contracts by NCDEX, SEBI by the impugned ex-parte ad-interim order

dated March 02, 2016 has restrained 16 entities including the appellants

from entering the securities market in any manner whatsoever until

further orders. Challenging the said order dated March 02, 2016, these

three appeals are filed.

11. Mr. Kadam and Mr. Sancheti, Learned Senior Advocates

appearing on behalf of UKS and SOL respectively submitted as follows:-

a) Impugned order is passed in haste without elucidating

the reasons for an ex-parte ad-interim order of such

grave consequence.

b) UKS and SOL had never defaulted in paying the

Margins and Mark to Market ("MTM" for short)

settlement obligation.

c) In the impugned order it is recorded that in December

2015 and January 2016 four CTMs including LEO

had repeatedly delayed in making payments that

became due in respect of the Castor Seed Contracts

entered into on behalf of their clients. In case of LEO

it is recorded that there were 10 counts of 'first run'

shortages between 05.01.2016 to 28.06.2016. It is 6

further recorded that on January 27, 2016, LEO and

two other CTMs had expressed inability to collect

MTM pay in obligation from their clients and

requested NCDEX to square off their clients

positions. Counsel for UKS and SOL submitted that

there is nothing on record to suggest that the aforesaid

'first run' shortages by LEO was attributable to UKS

and SOL. Assuming that there was delay on part of

LEO, it is submitted that at all times and even on

January 25 and January 27, 2016, UKS and SOL had

positive balance as can be seen from the ledger

maintained by UKS and SOL. Thus, it is evident that

UKS and SOL had all along healthy financial position

and they had not defaulted at any time in discharging

their Margin/MTM obligation. In such a case, the

WTM of SEBI is not justified in passing the ex-parte

ad-interim order against UKS and SOL and hence the

impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

d) Relying on clause 8 & 9 of Annexure I to the SEBI

Circular dated 01/10/2015 it is submitted that the

CTM is obliged to make good the MTM gains and

losses before the start of trading on T+1 day,

however, the clients are given time to make good the

MTM obligation till T+2 working days. In the present

case, even if LEO failed to make good the MTM

obligations, in view of the positive financial position 7

of UKS and SOL even on 25.01.2016 and 27.01.2016

it cannot be said that UKS and SOL had defaulted in

making payments on those two days. In such a case

UKS and SOL could not be said to have indulged in

manipulative design so as to disturb the market

equilibrium. There is nothing on record to suggest that

the appellants were in any way responsible for the fall

in the price of Castor Seed Contracts. In such a case,

for the alleged delay on part of LEO the broker, UKS

and SOL could not be restrained from entering the

securities market by passing an ex-parte interim order.

e) It is submitted that UKS and SOL had never failed to

meet MTM obligation. It is a matter of record that at

all times there were credit balance in their account.

Notwithstanding the additional margin on castor seed

imposed on 25.01.2016 and 27.01.2016, the closing

balance on 25.01.2016 was positive and the negative

balance on 27.01.2016 was met with on 28.01.2016.

Therefore, UKS and SOL could not be said to have

defaulted in meeting MTM obligation and

consequently no ex-parte order could be passed

against them.

f) Neither UKS nor SOL had at any time expressed their

inability to discharge their MTM obligation to the

broker. Even on January 27, 2016, when there was an 8

abrupt market fall, UKS and SOL had not expressed

their inability to pay to their broker LEO. Fact that

UKS and SOL had applied their stop loss policy to

curb further losses in a falling market and accordingly

requested LEO to square off their positions for

reasons beyond their control, cannot be treated as

manipulation or fraud by UKS and SOL.

g) UKS and SOL had not taken any position beyond

their financial recourses and had maintained the

requisite margins with LEO in respect of total

positions at all times. Moreover, as on 27.01.2016,

NCDEX was holding margin of 14.90% which was

more than sufficient to take care of any possibility of

default situation. Apart from the above, as regards

'pay-in' obligations based on MTM loss for

27.01.2016, it appears that NCDEX had confirmed

that it was possible to meet the respective 'pay-in'

obligations from the margin money. In these

circumstances, restraining the appellants from

entering the securities market by passing an ex-parte

ad-interim order is wholly unjustified.

h) There is no allegation in the impugned order that the

16 entities referred to in the impugned order, who

purportedly held 62.48% of February 16 Contract are

in any way related or that they were acting in concert 9

or that there was a case of cartelization. Moreover,

picking only February 2016 Contract and holding that

the appellants along with others held 62.48% of

February 2016 Contracts is incorrect since the open

interest has to be computed on the market wide open

interest reflected in para 3 of the impugned order.

12. Mr. Sancheti, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

LEO (Appellant in Appeal No. 83 of 2016) submitted as follows:-

a) None of the clients of LEO, at any time, had

expressed their inability to discharge the MTM

obligation. On 27.01.2016, when the market fell by

6%, an additional margin of 2.55% was imposed by

NCDEX, the impact of which was ` 1.82 crore.

Clients of LEO had squared off certain of their

commodity positions including castor seeds

amounting to ` 2.30 crore. In addition LEO had

managed to pay ` 1.86 crore to NCDEX. For the

balance amount, the clients requested LEO for

extension of time by one day to generate liquidity and

also requested for squaring off all their castor seed

positions in view of the falling market.

b) On 27.01.2016 LEO had sent an E-mail stating that

the delay was due to interbank transactions and

further increase in margin. Though the margins as 10

increased were paid, the MTM was paid on the next

day. It is the case of LEO, that inspite of assuring that

payments to NCDEX would be made on time,

NCDEX aggressively followed up for compliance of

pay-in requirement without allowing the member any

further time and thus, LEO was forced to address

another mail to NCDEX on 27.01.2016 at about 2.50

P.M. requesting NCDEX to square off all its positions

so that its account do not go into 'default' square off

mode. Thus, LEO had never expressed inability to pay

MTM. In fact, LEO had promptly paid all margins

and MTM obligations and additional margins. Hence,

the impugned ex-parte ad-interim order passed on the

basis that LEO had defaulted in payment is wholly

unsustainable. In any event, it cannot be said that

failure to discharge first run obligation before the

stipulated time has contributed to disturbing the price

determination mechanism.

c) For the delay in payment of MTM obligation,

NCDEX has not declared the appellant to be a

defaulter and has only imposed interest/penalty which

has been duly paid by LEO. In such a case, SEBI is

not justified in arriving at a prima facie conclusion

that LEO has defaulted in payment and as a result the

market equilibrium was disturbed. 11

d) It is not stated in the impugned order as to how the

investor protection and safe-guarding the market

integrity is achieved by the impugned order especially

when the clients of LEO have incurred losses in the

trade and the said clients were not defaulters.

e) Relying on the decisions of this Tribunal in case of

Pan Card Clubs Ltd. vs SEBI (Appeal No. 254 of

2014 decided on 17.09.2014) and Kasat Securities

Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 27 of 2006, decided

on 20.06.2006) it is submitted that although, SEBI

does have the power to pass ex-parte interim orders in

certain cases, it must do so only upon showing the

existence of circumstances which warrant such a

drastic measure. In the present case, no such

circumstances are shown to be in existence.

Therefore, it is just and proper that the impugned

order be quashed and set aside.

13. Mr. Sen Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of SEBI, on

the other hand, submitted that the reason set out in the impugned order

clearly demonstrate that repeated failure to discharge MTM obligation on

part of four CTMs whose clients set out therein were collectively holding

62.48% open interest of February 2016 contract led to prima facie belief

that the acts and omissions of those entities disturbed market equilibrium 12

and also indicated manipulative and fraudulent design to maintain the

price and/or to benefit the position they were having in the physical

market. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned decision and

it is open to the appellants to show to the WTM of SEBI with facts and

figures that the prima facie belief formed by SEBI is unjustified and in

that event appropriate order would be passed by the WTM of SEBI.

14. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.

15. Basic question to be considered in these appeals is, whether on the

facts set out in the impugned order, the WTM of SEBI was justified in

arriving at a prima facie belief that the acts and omissions of 16 entities

(including appellants) set out in the impugned order had disturbed the

market equilibrium in Castor Seed Contracts and if so, whether the WTM

of SEBI by ex-parte ad-interim was justified in restraining the entities

specified therein from entering the securities market.

16. Admittedly, the prices of castor seed started falling continuously

from the month of October 2015 onwards without any upward trend. In

January 2016, the price of castor seed instead of stabilizing had fallen

further by 20%. The crisis arose when in two consecutive trading

sessions itself (4% on 25.01.2016 and 6% on 27.01.2016) the prices fell

by 10% and as a result of hitting the lower circuit the trading came to a

grinding halt.

17. Investigation carried out by SEBI revealed that 13 clients set out

therein collectively held open interest of 1,76,990 ( 62.48% of Open 13

Interest of February 2016 Contract) out of total Open Interest of 2,83,260

for February 2016 Contract. Investigation carried out by SEBI further

revealed that in case of LEO (Appellant in Appeal No. 83 of 2016) there

were 10 counts of 'first run' shortages between 05.01.2016 to 28.01.2016

and the shortage amounts were in the range of ` 19.07 lac to ` 9.39

crore.

18. On 25.01.2016, one CTM referred to in the impugned order

expressed its inability to collect MTM pay in obligation from its clients

and asked NCDEX to square off their positions. Similarly, on

27.01.2016, other CTMs referred to in the impugned order had expressed

their inability to collect MTM pay in obligation from their clients and

requested NCDEX to square off their clients positions.

19. So far as LEO (Appellant in Appeal No. 83 of 2016) is concerned

it is a matter of fact that on 27.01.2016, LEO failed to meet the 'first run'

obligation.

20. Clause 9 of Annexure 1 to SEBI circular dated 01.10.2015 reads

thus:-

" 9. Mark to Market (MTM) Settlement:

All open positions of a futures contract would be

settled daily, only in cash, based on the Daily

Settlement Price (DSP). DSP shall be reckoned and

disseminated by the Exchange at the end of every

trading day. The mark to market gains and losses 14

shall be settled in cash before the start of trading on

T+1 day. If mark to market obligations are not

collected before start of the next day's trading, the

exchange shall collect correspondingly higher initial

margin (scaling up by a factor of square root of two)

to cover the potential losses over the time elapsed in

the collection of margins."

21. From the aforesaid clause it is evident that based on the Daily

Settlement Price ("DSP" for short) fixed by NCDEX, LEO was bound

and liable to settle the MTM obligation in cash before the start of trading

on T+1 day. In the present case, LEO failed to meet that obligation on 10

different dates in January 2016. Even on 27.01.2016 LEO failed to pay

the MTM pay-in obligation of 25.01.2016 before the start of trading

27.01.2016 (26.01.2016 being a holiday), inspite of specific direction

given to that effect by NCDEX on 26.01.2016. It is the case of LEO that

on being pressurized by NCDEX with aggressive follow up for the pay-in

requirement without allowing the member any further time, LEO was

forced to address an E-mail on 27.01.2016 at 2.50 P.M. to NCDEX

requesting to square off all its positions.

22. It is relevant to note that on 27.01.2016 at 11.14 A.M. LEO had

sent an E-mail to NCDEX, wherein LEO had apologized for not entirely

meeting the strict pay-in time line. It was further stated that the delay was

caused largely due to the time consuming interbank transactions at their

client's end. It was also stated in the E-mail that LEO is constantly 15

working with its clients to facilitate the pay-in on time. Admittedly UKS

and SOL (Appellants in Appeal Nos. 81 & 82 of 2016) are the clients of

LEO.

23. From the aforesaid E-mail sent by LEO to NCDEX on 27.01.2016

at 11.14 A.M. it is apparent that UKS and SOL had repeated difficulty in

meeting the pay-in obligation. In the impugned order it is noticed that 13

clients (including UKS and SOL) who had 62.48% of Open Interest of

February 2016 Contract (approximately valued at ` 540 crore)

repeatedly found it difficult to meet the MTM pay-in obligation and

consequently the four CTMs (including LEO) repeatedly failed to

comply with SEBI Circular dated 01.10.2015. In these circumstances, the

prima facie view formed by the WTM of SEBI that UKS and LEO had

taken huge long positions beyond their ability to fulfill the commitment

cannot be faulted.

24. No doubt that inspite of repeated failure on part of four CTMs

(including LEO) to adhere to the strict pay-in time line, NCDEX has

chosen not to declare those four CTMs (including LEO) as defaulters and

has chosen only to collect interest/penalty for the delay in the pay-in

obligation. However, that does not preclude the market regulator SEBI

from taking preventive measures as contemplated under the SEBI Act

especially when the entities holding 62.48% of open interest of February

2016 Contract of castor seed have repeatedly failed to discharge the

MTM pay-in obligation on time. Fact that the pay-in obligation was

subsequently met with does not mean that there is no violation of SEBI

Circular. In such a case, the proper course for the appellants is to satisfy 16

the WTM of SEBI that inspite of repeated failure to meet the MTM pay-

in obligation on time, the said failure has not contributed to the

disturbance of the market equilibrium on 27.01.2016.

25. Fact that the SEBI Circular dated 01.10.2015 permits the CTM to

collect MTM margin from the clients till T+2 working days does not

mean that the mandatory requirement of settling the MTM pay-in

obligation in cash before the start of trading on T+1 day can be dispensed

with. It is not the case of UKS and SOL that they had put in funds with

LEO for settling the 'first run' obligation and it is the broker who has

failed to do the needful. In fact it is the specific case of LEO that it is

constantly working with its clients to facilitate the pay-in on time. Thus,

in the facts of present case, it is evident that the brokers and obviously

their clients including UKS and SOL have repeatedly failed to comply

with the pay-in obligation in relation to Castor Seed Contracts which is in

gross violation of SEBI Circular dated 01.10.2015. Since such violations

took place during the period when the prices of Castor Seed Contracts

were falling and the trading in the Castor Seed Contracts had to be

suspended, the prima-facie belief that the said violations were also

instrumental in disturbing the market equilibrium cannot be faulted.

26. Argument of UKS and SOL that on 27.01.2016 when the trading

halted due to circuit break down, they, with a view to minimize the losses

took a prudent decision to square off the contracts is without any merit.

As noted above, request for squaring off was made at 2.50 P.M. and prior

thereto the 'first run' obligation liable to be discharged on 27.01.2016

was not discharged and LEO admitted the same vide its E-mail sent at 17

11.14 A.M. on 27.01.2016. In fact according to LEO, it was pressurized

by NCDEX to comply with the pay-in requirement without giving any

further time to the member and therefore, NCDEX was requested to

square off its positions. Thus, repeated failure to meet MTM pay-in

obligation in relation to Castor Seed Contracts is an established fact and

in the facts set out herein above, the prima facie view of the WTM of

SEBI that the appellants repeatedly defaulted in meeting the pay-in

obligation cannot be faulted. Consequently, the prima facie view of the

WTM that repeated failure to meet MTM pay-in obligation has disturbed

the market equilibrium cannot be faulted.

27. The expression 'disturbing the market equilibrium' has a wider

meaning in the commodities derivative market, since it is linked to the

supply-demand factors in the underlying physical market and in the

present case, conduct of 13 entities including UKS and SOL holding

62.48% of the total open interest of February 2016 Contract had to be

seen in that context.

28. It is not the case of SEBI that the appellants were responsible for

the fall in the futures price of Castor Seed Contracts. However, in a

falling market, if clients/brokers holding 62.48% of the total open interest

of February 2016 Contract, have repeated failed to meet MTM pay-in

obligation, then the prima facie belief formed by the WTM of SEBI that

those clients had taken huge long positions beyond their ability to fulfill

the commitment cannot be faulted. 18

29. For all the aforesaid reasons, the prima facie view taken in the

impugned order that the acts and omissions of the appellants and other

entities referred to in the impugned order had contributed to the

disturbance of market equilibrium in Castor Seed Contracts cannot be

faulted. Consequently, pending further investigation, the decision to

restrain those entities including the appellants from entering the securities

market, cannot be faulted. However, it is open to the appellants to file

their *objections to the ex-parte order, and if such objections are filed,

the WTM of SEBI would be bound and liable to pass appropriate order

thereon as expeditiously as possible.

30. Accordingly, we see no merit in these three appeals and the same

are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sd/- Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/- Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member *Amended pursuant to order dated 06.05.2016.

05.05.2016 Prepared & Compared By: PK 19

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

Date of Decision: 06.05.2016

Appeal No. 81 of 2016

UKS Oils Pvt. Ltd. 203, Diamond House, Panjagutta, Behind Topaz Building, Hyderabad- 500 082 ...Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Mr. P. R. Ramesh, Mr. A. Rama Rao and Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, Advocates i/b Visesha Law Services for the Appellant.

Mr. J. P. Sen Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

WITH Appeal No. 82 of 2016

Secunderabad Oils Ltd. 203, Diamond House, Panjagutta, Behind Topaz Building, Hyderabad- 500 082 ...Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Mr. P. R. Ramesh, Mr. A. Rama Rao and Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, Advocates i/b Visesha Law Services for the Appellant.

Mr. J. P. Sen Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent. 20

AND Appeal No. 83 of 2016

Leo Global Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 203, Diamond House, Panjagutta, Behind Topaz Building, Hyderabad- 500 082 ...Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Mr. P. R. Ramesh, Mr. A. Rama Rao, Ms. Sabeena Mahadik and Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, Advocates i/b Visesha Law Services for the Appellant.

Mr. J. P. Sen Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar

ORDER:

It is brought to our notice that in paragraph 29 of our order passed

in the above Appeals on 05.05.2016, instead of the word "objections" the

word "obligations" is inadvertently typed.

The inadvertent error be corrected accordingly.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 06.05.2016 Prepared & Compared By: PK