Regulations
FMC modifies KYC registration process for complying with SEBI

FMC will have the same KYC document for commodity derivatives market as prescribed by SEBI for securities market

 

There will now be a common know your customer (KYC) process for both commodity and stock markets. Commodities regulator Forward Markets Commission (FMC) has modified its norms to make it easier for clients to register for trading in these two financial markets.
 
On Saturday, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced that the FMC would be merged with capital market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI); the latter will now oversee both equity and commodities markets. 
 
"The Commission has decided that KYC document of the commodity derivatives market will be identical to that prescribed by the SEBI for the securities market," commodity markets regulator FMC said in a circular to all national commodity bourses.
 
This is being done to enable uniform KYC registration process in the two financial markets to make it easier for clients to register for trading and to avoid duplication of paper work with various intermediaries, it said.
 
According to the FMC, the modified KYC documents would comprise of a KYC form for 'individuals only ' and another 'non-individuals only' as prescribed by SEBI.
 
The other documents include uniform risk disclosure document along with rights and obligations of members, authorised persons and clients as well as do's and don'ts for the clients, it said, adding that these three documents will remained unchanged.
 
The commodity bourses have been asked to bring the provisions of this circular to the notice of their members and also disseminate the same through their website.
 
The exchanges have been asked to make amendments to the relevant bye-laws, rules and regulations for the implementation of the modified KYC norms.
 
Currently, there are four national and six regional commodity bourses operating in the country.
 

User

How the ‘Corridors of Power’ work in Delhi-Part 4

Everything worked well during last decade, if you had even the smallest of Italian connections in Delhi. Until one day, the Italian mercenaries on board ENRICA LEXIE killed two Indian fishermen

 

One of the most important elements in influencing the corridors of power in Delhi was Italian food. Also described often as "Continental Food", and more than often in Delhi consisting of nothing much more than bread with an attitude and expensively priced salt dipped in olive oil, thick white sauces made of cheese and random herbs all smothered over badly chopped vegetables or poor cuts of meat. A wood fired oven, which was more often than not gas assisted, somebody's spouse with a work visa as the front (Albanian or Romanian would do if Italian was not available), and you were in business.
 
Nobody could touch you as long as you said in a mysterious voice-"I have to go now, catering at 10, Janpath", and that included serving alcohol out in the open in public lawns opposite your restaurant. There are a few specific mentions in this list - one in Sunder Nagar, another one in the Moolchand DDA Shopping Complex, a third in the Greater Kailash-II Market.
 
The liaison lot from the old days had their colonial clubs. The newer lot, who cut their teeth on keyboards, migrated from the media to serious fixing gravitated, instead, to these more modern and acceptable watering holes. It was but natural, then, that one tribe that started influencing the corridors of power the most in Delhi, were the so-called food writers. Spies have to meet up and exchange notes, so writing on food gives them the reason and the excuse to party hard, and globally.
 
One of them, the brave man in the Radia tapes for example, became well known for dropping names of genuine spies in his column more often than reviewing actual food. He is a neighbour and good friend of the meat-seller currently being investigated for running a laundry, in addition to meat exports. This is not co-incidental. Then there is the diva of them all, and her links to the one community, which morphs well with whoever rules India, and her frequent trips to random parts of Italy ostensibly to discover more pasta made in China. And then there is Shantanu Saikia, who incidentally, was married to the Queen Bee of them all in the food writing business. (I know a lot of food writers in India, the genuine sort who pay for their food, and have solid followings because of their credibility, none of them can afford the Bell Tower Suite in the Taj Mumbai, that's for sure, which is where, sadly, Sabina Saikia died during the Mumbai terror attacks).
 
The last decade in the Corridors of Power in Delhi was, certainly, the Italian decade. From banks operating out of diplomatic premises to 15% or more deals on everything including economic warfare of the counterfeit currency sort to bartering huge highway and infrastructure projects to setting up ring financing and re-insurance and private banking loops, everything worked if you had even the smallest of Italian connections in Delhi.
 
This was going along, willy-nilly and happily, until one day, the Italian mercenaries on board the ENRICA LEXIE killed two Indian fishermen on the St. ANTONY. They took things beyond anything that the Italian Connection in Delhi could handle. If there was one event, which marked a turning point in the corridors of power, it was this shoot-out. That is when the corridors of power in Delhi decided that enough was enough.
 
It is always the navy that comes to the rescue. Even in land-locked Delhi, every attempt including, placing dummy fabricated records of other fake ships attacked off Kochi, were simply repulsed by the Indian Navy. And that one event, amongst a few others including the Augusta helicopter scam, put the Corridors of Power in Delhi on notice.
 
What have been emerging are only the post-event tremors.
 
You may also want to read…
 
 
 
 
(Veeresh Malik started and sold a couple of companies, is now back to his first love—writing. He is also involved in helping small and midsize family-run businesses re-invent themselves.)
 

User

COMMENTS

George DSouza

2 years ago

This the ultimate most riveting articles I have read in a long time.

Investors, depositors have right to seek compensation in financial fraud
In an historical decision, the NCDRC held that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy 
 
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in a significant decision, has held that investors and depositors have a right to seek compensation under the Consumer Protection Act in case of defaults from a financial establishment. In a related case, the apex consumer Commission has asked Nagpur-based Shivaji Estate Livestock And Farms Pvt Ltd to refund money invested along with a 9% interest from filing the complaint. The NCDRC also directed the company to pay 10% of the amount invested as compensation and Rs1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. 
 
The NCDRC judgement ratifies a financial consumer's right to seek compensation for a fraudulent default on part of a financial establishment. A Bench of Justice VK Jain and Dr BC Gupta, said, "It would be seen from a perusal of the provisions contained in Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act that the designated court has no power to grant compensation to a person who is a victim of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the said MPID Act provides an adequate redressal of the grievances of a person who suffers on account of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment, where such defaults also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider to its consumer. We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy available to the victim of a fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment."
 
In this case, the complainants, Pratibha Adelkar and 372 others were represented by Adv Shirish Deshpande of the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat.
 
Shivaji Estate Livestock invited investors to invest in its goat farming and allied activities by purchasing units of several schemes floated by it. In its brochure, Shivaji Estate Livestock said it has arranged about 500 goats in each goat shed with 25-50 such shed in each rearing centre, 100% of the livestock would be insured and there would be 100% guarantee of the invested amount. The company also told investors that they would have hypothetical charge on 1,000 sq ft of land of Shivaji Estate Livestock and one time investment would offer consistent benefit for 15 years, experienced vets and professionals would look after livestock. 
 
The company also assured minimum expected return on the investment and if targets are achieved, investors were also promised additional bonus. The schemes also provided for pre-mature withdrawals by giving 45 days’ notice.
 
Initially, Shivaji Estate Livestock made payments of some instalments due to the investors under the schemes but later on did not fulfil the terms (for repayment to investors). When the investors applied for pre-mature withdrawals, the company failed to honour its commitment. Alleging deficiency in the services offered by Shivaji Estate Livestock, the complainants filed appeal before the NCDRC.
 
No one except a director of Shivaji Estate Livestock filed any reply. In the reply, the company director took a preliminary objection that in view of the provisions contained in the MPID Act, the NCDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the Act provides complete machinery for recovery of investors' deposits. It also stated that a complaint and FIR was filed against the company. A charge sheet was filed against the Company and nine others, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of the MPID Act and the case was pending before the Designated Court. Shivaji Estate Livestock, however did not deny floating of schemes and accepting deposits from the complainants.
 
The NDCRD Bench, said, "As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 'consumer' means any person, who either buys goods or hires or avails services for a consideration, but does not include a person, who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. The term 'service' has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean service of any description, which is made available to potential users. The Complainants hired or availed the services of the opposite party for investing their savings in the schemes floated by Shivaji Estate Livestock, and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in goat farming and allied activities. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the complainants are consumers of Shivaji Estate Livestock within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act."
 
The Bench then decided on whether the jurisdiction of NCDRC is barred under sub-section of Section 6 of the MPID Act.
 
Adv Deshpande contented that since the consumer forum is not a court; the provisions of Section 6(2) of the MPID Act are not applicable to such forum. He also submitted that the remedy provided before a consumer forum is a civil remedy in a case where the fraudulent default, as defined in MPID Act also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider, whereas MPID Act provides for criminal prosecution and punishment of the persons indulging in such fraudulent defaults. "...the designated court constituted under the provisions of MPID Act has no power to grant compensation, which a consumer forum can grant in a case of deficiency in the services rendered to a consumer," Adv Deshpande pointed out.
 
Accepting the contention, the Bench said, "Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The MPID Act came to be enacted much later than enactment of the Consumer Protection Act. Despite that the Legislation in its wisdom used only the expression 'Court' and not the expression 'Court or any other forum' in sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to say that the legislative intent behind the enactment of sub-Section (2) of the Section 6 was also to exclude the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in a case where fraudulent default on the part of the Financial Establishment also constitutes deficiency in the service rendered to a consumer. Therefore, in our view, for the purpose of the sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the MPID Act, consumer forum cannot be said to be a 'court'."
 
While disposing of the complaint, the apex consumer forum, then directed Shivaji Estate Livestock to refund to investors, money deposited in different schemes along with an interest of 9% from the date of filing complaint.

User

COMMENTS

Amol

11 months ago

We Have Invested money In fds Of phadnis , unitech , helios, neesa etc. No one is paying principle or interest amont. Complains filed at almost in every government origrinisition like erda. Nothing useful. All are integrated to trap common man. Be aware on company deposits. Government is trapping common man using such origrinisition .
Amol

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)