Co-location case: NSE to appeal against Sebi order
NSE will appeal against a Sebi order in the co-location issue in which it has been penalised up to Rs 1,000 crore and barred from approaching market for the next six months at the Securities Applleate Tribunal (SAT).
 
When contacted, NSE spokesperson declined to comment. The exchange has made a regulatory filing on the development. 
 
"The holding company is in the process of filing an appeal to contest the aforesaid orders with the Hon'ble Securities Appellate Tribunal, the future outcome of which is uncertain at this stage," the NSE said in its consolidated financial statements for 2018-19. 
 
In a volume of five orders issued on May 1, Sebi had asked the NSE to "disgorge" its profits from co-location worth Rs 624.89 crore at 12 per cent interest to the Investor Protection and Education Fund (IPEF). The amount with interest would add up to about Rs 1,000 crore. 
 
The Sebi had also penalised NSE's two former CEOs and founding members Ravi Narain and Chitra Ramakrishna. 
 
Narain, who was heading the exchange between 2010 and 2013, was asked to deposit 25 per cent of his salary for the three fiscals in IPEF, while Ramakrishna, who was the CEO of the exchange starting fiscal 2014, was asked to deposit 25 per cent of her salary for that fiscal. She stepped down as CEO in December 2016. 
 
In the order, the regulator had found lapses in the use of dark fibre by certain trading members in violation of NSEs own policy norms. 
 
Dark fibre is a dedicated communication line through which messages travel faster than regular lines because of the absence of other traffic.
 
But, there is nothing illegal about using such faster connectivity infrastructure. Sebi held that NSE had been taking inconsistent positions and its conduct broke its own rules right from the time when a non-registered member, Sampark, was granted permission in April 2015 to lay dark fibre cable for two brokerage firms leading to lack of fair play and favourtism. 
 
"The data so received from NSE was being misused for the purpose of developing algo-based trading software for their commercial gains," S.K. Mohanty, a full-time member of Sebi had said earlier. 
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

NSE penalises Jet, IL&FS, Adanis for breach of listing norms
The National Stock Exchange (NSE) on Wednesday imposed fines and issued notices to 250 companies for not adhering to the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR).
 
Among the companies penalised, were the grounded Jet Airways, subsidiary companies of the crisi-riddenn IL&FS and Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (APSEZ, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd, the parent company of the largest airlines by market share, IndiGo, and several state owned entities.
 
"The National Stock Exchange (NSE) after monitoring the compliance of listing regulations for all its listed entities imposed fines and issued notices to non-compliant companies for the quarter ended March 31, 2019," NSE said in a statement.
 
The NSE cited a market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) circular in this regard, which says that gives it the power to "levy per day fines" and "freeze the holdings of the promoter and promoter group" if non-compliant listed entities fail to comply with the requirements of listing regulations and/or pay the fine levied within the stipulated period.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Ramesh Poapt

7 days ago

minimum action by nse.

Banking Ombudsman Disposing of More Complaints Through Settlement; Issued Awards in Only 0.2% Cases in FY2017-18
The office of the Banking Ombudsman (BO) has disposed of more than 60% of the complaints through mutual settlement or agreement and has issued awards in only 0.2% or 148 cases out of the 83,532 maintainable cases, reveals a report from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
 
As per the report, during FY2017-18, the 21 offices of BO from across the country received 1.64 lakh complaints from bank customers. This ranges from  non-observance of fair practices code (22.1%), ATM and debit card issues (15.1%), credit card complaints (7.7%), failure to meet commitments (6.8%), and mobile and electronic banking (5.2%).
 
 
The BO also received complaints on issues relating to pension, levy of charges without notice, loans and advances, remittance, direct selling agencies (DSAs) and recovery agents and mis-selling, each accounting for 5% or less of the total complaints received.
 
"Although the office of BOs handled 28% more complaints in 2017-18, the disposal rate was 96.5% as against 92% in 2016-17. There was a marked increase in the number of complaints resolved by agreement or through mediation, which rose to 65.82% in 2017-18 from 42.43% during the previous year," the report says.
 
RBI says the scheme promotes settlement of complaints by agreement through conciliation or mediation by BOs. If the parties fail to arrive at an acceptable conclusion by agreement, the BO gives a decision or passes an award. 
 
 
However, out of the 83,532 maintainable cases, the BO issued awards in only 148 cases, out of which it was implemented in just 111 cases.
 
 
Consumers or lenders not happy with the BO award can file an appeal with the deputy governor in charge of the Consumer Education and Protection Department (CEPD) of the RBI, which is the appellate authority (AA). Due to a revision of the BO scheme, during FY2017-18, there was an eightfold increase in the number of appeals (125) compared with 15 recorded in the past year. 
 
Of these, 115 appeals were received from complainants who were aggrieved by the decision of the respective BOs whereas 10 were filed by the banks. The AA handled 132 appeals during the year, including seven appeals that were pending at the beginning of the year. Of these, 37 appeals were disposed of as on 30 June 2018, the report shows. 
 
The BO scheme is applicable to scheduled commercial banks, scheduled primary urban co-operative banks and the regional rural banks (RRBs), small finance banks and payment banks from across the country. The scheme is managed by RBI through 21 BO offices covering all states and union territories.
 
As per the revised scheme, there are no restrictions on the BO, in terms of the amount involved in the case. It is also empowered to award a compensation of up to Rs20 lakh for losses from deficiency in service. In addition, the ombudsman can give a compensation of Rs1 lakh to cover harassment and mental anguish, which was previously available only to credit card complaints. 
  
During FY2017-18, the BO received 1,63,590 complaints with almost 16.3% or 26,653 complaints received from the Delhi office. No wonder the north zone accounted for maximum number of complaints. However, east zone accounted only for 15% of the total complaints received by the BO.
 
According to the report, the number of customers filing complaints online at the BO is increasing significantly. During FY2017-18, 64% of the total complaints were filed through internet, of which 49% were through emails and the rest 15% were filed on the BO portal. 
 
 
During FY2017-18, the BO rejected the maximum number of cases (89% or 25114) for not being on the grounds specific to the scheme. From the rest of the complaints, majority or 8.27% (2,337) were rejected due to lack of ‘elaborate documentary and oral evidence’. However, since the revised BO scheme has allowed such rejected cases to be appealed from July 2017, there was an increase in appeals before the Appellate Authority. 
 
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

GLN Prasad

1 week ago

Don't worry be happy for the unity of the Banks, not even one bank maintains grievance redressal mechanism even in case of very serious violations by officials. An employer of security agency collected xerox copies of all his security guards in the state for ID purpose, got opening forms signed for getting account opening forms from all over the state, opened all these thousands of account at his HQ, linked to AADHAR and even swallowed the Gas subsidy of the security guards, without their knowledge. They do not have a mechanism to make a follow up with that Bank branch situated hundreds of miles away. The accounts were also used for encashing amounts during demonetization. When the poor security guard referred the matter to Ombudsman, the simple rejection of the application is that there was no deficiency of service by the bank. Another employer has debited the account of his employee's bank account and used the amount for a recovery towards a change of some bars in a safe his knowledge and consent. The learned Ombudsman rejected application stating that the issue of debiting account by Bank is between employer and employee, even after SC decision was enclosed to complain. Might is right always. Bankers are strange as they fear towards high-value clientele, and do not even care to respond to common depositors.

Deepak Narain

1 week ago

The institution of Banking Ombudsman is an impotent and useless entity. There has to be some superior authority to keep a watch on their responsiveness. The appellate body of PNB is a master of futility. The branches of PNB do not reply -much less act - to your mails irrespective of the number of reminders and we have no relief from anywhere. When you remind the appellate authority, they ask for such absurd information that we give up in disgust and leave our lot to God.

Similarly useless is the ombudsman of HDFC Bank. It acts as a post office only. It forwards our complaints and reminders to the defaulting branch with not doing anything for providing any relief.

GLN Prasad

2 weeks ago

Another ornamental, rehabilitation center, white elephant or a paper tiger. Now, I understand as to why none of the advocates guide the clients to go to Ombudsman. Next article should be the total amount of Govt. spent every year on this noble task, eye washing exercise. Shame or pride?

VASANT KULKARNI

2 weeks ago

EXCELLENT WORK BY ALL BOs.

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

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)