Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: margin call in Smc Global Securities Ltd ( Us 34) vs Aakash Goel on 17 February, 2024Matching Fragments
".... In the absence of any document showing maintenance of given percentage to carry the position, the squaring off is without rights of the TM. The claim of the TM that the telephone calls made, on the morning of 16th May 2014, to the father of the Respondent were the margin calls is not acceptable in absence of recording of the conversations."
5. Now, by way of the present petition, the award of the Ld. Appellate Tribunal is under challenge for being against public policy of India on account following broad reasons:
6. On merits, allegations have been denied and it is submitted that "telephone call" cannot be substituted for "margin call". It is maintained that no margin call was made. It is stated that the findings of the Ld. Arbitrator and the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal are speaking in nature and do not warrant interference. It is denied that there has been any violation of public policy.
ARGUMENTS
7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the SEBI byelaws by granting notional loss. Thereafter, it has also been argued that the allegation that the squaring off was done without intimation to the respondent / constituent is belied by the affidavit of Sh. Neeraj Goel, father of the respondent / constituent who was also acting as his authorized representative and who clearly admitted in his affidavit that call was made and he consulted the respondent / constituent before directing closure 04 lots of NIFTY. Therefore, it has been submitted that the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the material on record.
8. On behalf of the respondent / constituent, it has been argued that call was never denied but only "margin call" was SMC Global Securities Ltd. Vs. Aakash Goel Page no. 6 of 13 stated not to have been received. Further, it is stated that as per 2008 circular, the TM was required to maintain recordings of margin call records which it failed to produce. Further, it has been submitted that the grievance qua notional loss being against SEBI's guidelines was never raised before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal. Finally, it has also been submitted that even after adjustment of margin, there was positive balance in the account of the respondent / constituent and therefore, the petitioner / TM failed to justify suo moto action.
10. At the outset, it would be relevant to mention that re SMC Global Securities Ltd. Vs. Aakash Goel Page no. 10 of 13 appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of petition u/s 34 of the Act. Be that as it may, the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal has considered the material and submissions produced before it qua making of "margin call" and has arrived at a reasoned finding that the respondent / constituent was not given sufficient time to make good the margin, before squaring off the position. It has also observed that margin percentage required to be maintained by the respondent / constituent to carry on the position was also not communicated. Therefore, the objection that the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal ignored the evidence qua making of "margin call"