Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Clients shall receive all communications either through SMS / Whatsapp Messages / Internet / E-Mail / Message displayed on Terminal / Voice Calls / Display on Website etc. regarding confirmation of orders or trades, margin calls, decision to liquidate positions / security etc. under MTF. It is the sole https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis responsibility of Clients to monitor communications sent to them on an immediate basis and act upon the same. Clients shall not hold EMKAY responsible for any loss arising out of their own inaction post receipt of communication from EMKAY.
17. On receipt of 'margin call', the Clients shall make good such deficiency in the amount of margin placed with the EMKAY by 12 noon of T+1 day failing which EMKAY shall be entitled to liquidate funded and / or margin securities as applicable. However EMKAY shall be entitled to reduce / liquidate positions due to market volatility or reduction in Risk Cover below 15% even before the Clients top up Margins. If the debit is not cleared due to closure of Funded Stocks, EMKAY shall have the right to adjust available margin amounts / liquidate available Margin Stock to clear debit balances. In case of extreme volatility in the market, EMKAY may demand payment of margin forthwith and prescribed time for making margin payment shall be construed accordingly. Decision of EMKAY in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis relation to market volatility shall be final and binding without EMKAY having to provide any reason for the decision to Clients.

12. On perusal of clause 7, it is clear that the Stock Broker was vested with the discretion of extending MTF only in respect of such shares, as may be permitted by the relevant stock exchange or SEBI. In addition, the Stock Broker was conferred the right to de-list shares from the approved MTF https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis securities list. In such event, the Client was required to pay the full purchase consideration in respect of such shares on receiving a margin call. As per clause 11, margin calls could be made through SMS / Whatsapp / e-mail and clause 17 provides that the Client shall make good such deficiency in the amount of margin by 12 noon of T+1 day, failing which the Stock Broker is entitled to liquidate the securities. Indeed, in specified circumstances, liquidation by the Stock Broker is permitted even before the margin is topped-up by the Client. If any amounts remain unpaid after such liquidation, as per clause 18, the Client is required to make good the shortfall. In addition to the above, the Client also provided an undertaking to the Stock Broker. Clause (c) thereof, which is relevant, is set out below:

From the above, it appears that the Client did not contend in the Section 33 petition that the call logs had not been provided to him in course of arbitral proceedings. Hence, it cannot be concluded that the call log was not received https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by the Client.

18. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, any error which goes to the root of the matter warrants interference but not other errors. There is documentary evidence on record that a margin call was made on the Client. In fact, the relevant communication also refers to the phone call made to the Client on 05.03.2020 and his failure to respond thereto. In these circumstances, even proceeding on the assumption that the call log had not been produced earlier by the Stock Broker, the Impugned Award is not vitiated on that account because the Client admits that there was a deficiency in margin and also admits the right of the Stock Broker to liquidate the securities for such failure. Thus, when the Impugned Award is examined in context, it cannot be concluded that it suffers from a patent illegality warranting interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.