The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has reportedly fixed the penalty to be imposed on the National Stock Exchange (NSE) a month after having found the bourse guilty of abuse of dominant position in a dispute with MCX-SX.
It is understood that the NSE has been asked to pay five per cent of its average annual turnover as penalty apart from being directed to ‘cease and desist’ from unfair trade practices in the currency derivatives (CD) sector, reported Moneycontrol.
Further, the NSE has to stop subsidising its currency derivatives operations and refrain from pursuing any anti-competitive practices, according to Moneycontrol.
The CCI had in a majority order dated 25 May 2011 held that the NSE had contravened certain provisions of section 4 of the Competition Act and enjoyed a dominant position in the CD segment contrary to the Director General’s (DG’s) finding that NSE was dominant in the entire stock exchange, reported Legally India.
Amarchand Mangaldas with Vaish Associates and P&A Law Offices had represented the NSE and MCX-SX respectively before the CCI.
MCX-SX had approached the CCI against NSE in November 2009, afterwards a DG probe was ordered and its report was submitted in September 2010. A show cause notice was then served on NSE by the CCI in April 2011 pursuant to which an order was passed in May 2011.
Comments
"One of India's premier regulators, in a recent case involving two of the most prominent stock exchanges in the country, extorted money from both sides, before awarding a mutilated decision to one of them. The brokers in the deal were some of the most prominent law firms in India."
To read his entire article, click on this link:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/Four-vital-steps-to-fight-corruption/articleshow/8908705.cms
I am glad to see your post. This article is completely crap. We are representing one of the parties in the matter and to my knowledge, it has never happened.
I am glad to see your post. This article is completely crap. We are representing one of the parties in the matter and to my knowledge, it has never happened.[/quote]
You're an interested party!! Should you be believed?!
I am al law grad from on of the so called famous law school and have seen/heard the development of the case from inside and outside (member deleberations & law firm partners). What X1 has quoted is 110% true.................
I am al law grad from on of the so called famous law school and have seen/heard the development of the case from inside and outside (member deleberations & law firm partners). What X1 has quoted is 110% true.................[/quote]
Your English suggests that you're from {insert name of law school that claims its famous but is actually pretty bad}
Surely you haven't seen lawyers from both sides handing money over to the commission. If you have, then surely you've filed complaints with the relevant authorities and made a general ruckus about it. If you haven't then you're as corrupt as the parties allegedly are, and you really shouldn't be believed.
The article that X-1 has quoted played it safe and didn't take names, as it would otherwise never have been published as it is defamatory (though with the Times of India you really never know). People usually do that (or write allegedly) when they know that they have no basis for their statements.
So, One who knows all (except how to spell), please provide evidence, as well as reasons for your silence on the issue, before making such defamatory statements about potentially honest lawyers as well as stock exchanges