The market regulator specified its role and restrictions in response to complaints registered by NSEL investors on the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) portal.
Sebi in a letter to NSEL investors dated June 14, said: “Investor grievances pertaining to the NSEL matter are beyond (our) regulatory domain.”
Also Read
It has been clarified, it stated, that as commodity spot markets/ready delivery contracts were not regulated by the erstwhile Forward Markets Commission (FMC), Sebi was not expected to take up any regulatory function with regard to such markets.
When the scam was exposed in 2013, the Union consumer affairs ministry argued FMC had powers to take action. The issue has been raised and discussed in various regulatory committees, which advised the gap be addressed, as FMC did not have the mandate to control or regulate NSEL and other spot exchanges. “Sebi has no regulatory jurisdiction over spot delivery contracts in commodities even after the merger with FMC, as it did not come under the latter’s purview, which was regulating only forward contracts,” said a legal expert, on condition of anonymity.
“Since FMC itself had no regulatory jurisdiction over the commodity spot and ready delivery contracts, Sebi cannot assume a jurisdiction which was absent in the first place. Accordingly, Sebi in terms of the Finance Act, 2015, shall not be in a position to grant relief to NSEL investors by acting independently against the errant counter-parties but can only assist the courts/agencies appointed in the matter and represent matters wherein FMC was involved in any capacity,” said Tejesh Chitlangi, partner of IC Legal, a Mumbai-based law firm.
The regulator is defending the interest of FMC in all existing proceedings pending against the latter in various courts of law, said Sebi in its letter. The NSEL matter came to light on July 31, 2013, when the erstwhile exchange failed to pay its 13,000 investors in commodity pair contracts. Investors lost a combined Rs 5,600 crore, as it was found NSEL had neither the money nor the stocks to pay them back. This followed the consumer affairs ministry directive not to issue fresh contracts that crossed the 11-day timeline, which were in violation of the norms.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)