This noob is spineless as far as I've read his messages. We have all guided him in the right direction, after this we can only give him further guidelines, he should consult with his father about this. He's from a poor family so that is also a concern. Kotak just destroyed this young chaps life and aswell his family's. Ducking shame on those monsters.
pls give assisstance
- Thread starter shefeek
- Start date
Shefeek,
Please follow the steps mantioned by DSM and I hope you will get back some of your peace of mind.
P.S. I am sure other boarders must be having this suspicion - I still cann't believe that this kind of basic glitch is possible, Even if its a technical problem what are the chances that so many guys could have tried to do a trade over the margin given to them ? pretty high - It would hav created a big miss then.
Shefeek, Do you remember if the trades went through without any failure in first instance itself ? Just thinking of a possibility that some dealer quickly opened the margin for him and repeated the order on his behalf
Please follow the steps mantioned by DSM and I hope you will get back some of your peace of mind.
P.S. I am sure other boarders must be having this suspicion - I still cann't believe that this kind of basic glitch is possible, Even if its a technical problem what are the chances that so many guys could have tried to do a trade over the margin given to them ? pretty high - It would hav created a big miss then.
Shefeek, Do you remember if the trades went through without any failure in first instance itself ? Just thinking of a possibility that some dealer quickly opened the margin for him and repeated the order on his behalf
You screwed yourself by giving them the cheques. Otherwise they could not take a penny from you. :annoyed:
On which date your trade got executed and what date you write on your check(same day or next day)?
Anyway, here are few pieces of information that will be very precious for you:
1. In recent few years, there have been some rulings from senior courts (HC/SC) in NIA (Negotiable Instruments Act), that deal with Cheque Bounce Case.
For a "valid" cheque bounce case under NIA, a person must "owe" money.
If you give Kotak a cheque to transfer money to your trading account, and it bounces, you cannot be prosecuted for cheque bounce case.
Similary post dated and blank cheques taken by private banks as collateral for loan are not convered under NIA (the person taking the loan had not received the loan when he gave them the cheque, so technically he did not owe them the money when he gave the cheques and hence NIA is not applicable here).
However, there is one small catch in your case. Your trades got executed and then you gave them the cheque. So, after trade execution, you owe them the money. And therefore NIA case might stand against you.
Hat's off to Kotak guys, they are briliant. They did the perfect thing by taking cheques from you. Hat's off to you too, you gave them cheques without consulting anyone in your house and knowing that cheques will bounce as you don't have that much money in your account.
Anyway, if they make there story on this line (which is only case I which NIA will stand against you ), they are "trapped". They will have to acknowledge on record that they executed trades without having sufficient margin in clear violation of SEBI/NSE guidelines. SEBI/NSE will take care of them from here.
If they say, you gave them the cheques first and then trades got executed, you don't owe them money "when" you gave them the cheques and hence NIA is not applicable. (This story will can only be made if you have given cheques on the same day the trades got executed).
In a nutshell, Don't be intimidated by there bluff of cheque bounce case. That's the only weapon they got to scare you. Tell them they can go a file a case and you will contest it. They are more trapped than you are. Just sit tight and don't be intimidated.
Regarding NIA case, please do consult a good lawyer for these intricate details as most of the lower court lawyers won't be knowing about these.
(Google it, you will find all the references regarding the cases and judgements of SC/HC pertaining to NIA. I dug it out long time ago (~1 year ago) but unfortunately don't have those links bookmarked)
You might also need to consult on immediately filing a criminal complaint and if possible FIR against the branch for forcible taking cheques from you by intimidation and threat. (Do all that you can to get the FIR registered). A criminal case on there head, and the bank will come running for compromise.
On which date your trade got executed and what date you write on your check(same day or next day)?
Anyway, here are few pieces of information that will be very precious for you:
1. In recent few years, there have been some rulings from senior courts (HC/SC) in NIA (Negotiable Instruments Act), that deal with Cheque Bounce Case.
For a "valid" cheque bounce case under NIA, a person must "owe" money.
If you give Kotak a cheque to transfer money to your trading account, and it bounces, you cannot be prosecuted for cheque bounce case.
Similary post dated and blank cheques taken by private banks as collateral for loan are not convered under NIA (the person taking the loan had not received the loan when he gave them the cheque, so technically he did not owe them the money when he gave the cheques and hence NIA is not applicable here).
However, there is one small catch in your case. Your trades got executed and then you gave them the cheque. So, after trade execution, you owe them the money. And therefore NIA case might stand against you.
Hat's off to Kotak guys, they are briliant. They did the perfect thing by taking cheques from you. Hat's off to you too, you gave them cheques without consulting anyone in your house and knowing that cheques will bounce as you don't have that much money in your account.
Anyway, if they make there story on this line (which is only case I which NIA will stand against you ), they are "trapped". They will have to acknowledge on record that they executed trades without having sufficient margin in clear violation of SEBI/NSE guidelines. SEBI/NSE will take care of them from here.
If they say, you gave them the cheques first and then trades got executed, you don't owe them money "when" you gave them the cheques and hence NIA is not applicable. (This story will can only be made if you have given cheques on the same day the trades got executed).
In a nutshell, Don't be intimidated by there bluff of cheque bounce case. That's the only weapon they got to scare you. Tell them they can go a file a case and you will contest it. They are more trapped than you are. Just sit tight and don't be intimidated.
Regarding NIA case, please do consult a good lawyer for these intricate details as most of the lower court lawyers won't be knowing about these.
(Google it, you will find all the references regarding the cases and judgements of SC/HC pertaining to NIA. I dug it out long time ago (~1 year ago) but unfortunately don't have those links bookmarked)
You might also need to consult on immediately filing a criminal complaint and if possible FIR against the branch for forcible taking cheques from you by intimidation and threat. (Do all that you can to get the FIR registered). A criminal case on there head, and the bank will come running for compromise.
Last edited:
You screwed yourself by giving them the cheques. Otherwise they could not take a penny from you. :annoyed:
On which date your trade got executed and what date you write on your check(same day or next day)?
Anyway, here are few pieces of information that will be very precious for you:
1. In recent few years, there have been some rulings from senior courts (HC/SC) in NIA (Negotiable Instruments Act), that deal with Cheque Bounce Case.
For a "valid" cheque bounce case under NIA, a person must "owe" money.
If you give Kotak a cheque to transfer money to your trading account, and it bounces, you cannot be prosecuted for cheque bounce case.
Similary post dated and blank cheques taken by private banks as collateral for loan are not convered under NIA (the person taking the loan had not received the loan when he gave them the cheque, so technically he did not owe them the money when he gave the cheques and hence NIA is not applicable here).
However, there is one small catch in your case. Your trades got executed and then you gave them the cheque. So, after trade execution, you owe them the money. And therefore NIA case might stand against you.
Hat's off to Kotak guys, they are briliant. They did the perfect thing by taking cheques from you. Hat's off to you too, you gave them cheques without consulting anyone in your house and knowing that cheques will bounce as you don't have that much money in your account.
Anyway, if they make there story on this line (which is only case I which NIA will stand against you ), they are "trapped". They will have to acknowledge on record that they executed trades without having sufficient margin in clear violation of SEBI/NSE guidelines. SEBI/NSE will take care of them from here.
If they say, you gave them the cheques first and then trades got executed, you don't owe them money "when" you gave them the cheques and hence NIA is not applicable. (This story will can only be made if you have given cheques on the same day the trades got executed).
In a nutshell, Don't be intimidated by there bluff of cheque bounce case. That's the only weapon they got to scare you. Tell them they can go a file a case and you will contest it. They are more trapped than you are. Just sit tight and don't be intimidated.
Regarding NIA case, please do consult a good lawyer for these intricate details as most of the lower court lawyers won't be knowing about these.
(Google it, you will find all the references regarding the cases and judgements of SC/HC pertaining to NIA. I dug it out long time ago (~1 year ago) but unfortunately don't have those links bookmarked)
You might also need to consult on immediately filing a criminal complaint and if possible FIR against the branch for forcible taking cheques from you by intimidation and threat. (Do all that you can to get the FIR registered). A criminal case on there head, and the bank will come running for compromise.
On which date your trade got executed and what date you write on your check(same day or next day)?
Anyway, here are few pieces of information that will be very precious for you:
1. In recent few years, there have been some rulings from senior courts (HC/SC) in NIA (Negotiable Instruments Act), that deal with Cheque Bounce Case.
For a "valid" cheque bounce case under NIA, a person must "owe" money.
If you give Kotak a cheque to transfer money to your trading account, and it bounces, you cannot be prosecuted for cheque bounce case.
Similary post dated and blank cheques taken by private banks as collateral for loan are not convered under NIA (the person taking the loan had not received the loan when he gave them the cheque, so technically he did not owe them the money when he gave the cheques and hence NIA is not applicable here).
However, there is one small catch in your case. Your trades got executed and then you gave them the cheque. So, after trade execution, you owe them the money. And therefore NIA case might stand against you.
Hat's off to Kotak guys, they are briliant. They did the perfect thing by taking cheques from you. Hat's off to you too, you gave them cheques without consulting anyone in your house and knowing that cheques will bounce as you don't have that much money in your account.
Anyway, if they make there story on this line (which is only case I which NIA will stand against you ), they are "trapped". They will have to acknowledge on record that they executed trades without having sufficient margin in clear violation of SEBI/NSE guidelines. SEBI/NSE will take care of them from here.
If they say, you gave them the cheques first and then trades got executed, you don't owe them money "when" you gave them the cheques and hence NIA is not applicable. (This story will can only be made if you have given cheques on the same day the trades got executed).
In a nutshell, Don't be intimidated by there bluff of cheque bounce case. That's the only weapon they got to scare you. Tell them they can go a file a case and you will contest it. They are more trapped than you are. Just sit tight and don't be intimidated.
Regarding NIA case, please do consult a good lawyer for these intricate details as most of the lower court lawyers won't be knowing about these.
(Google it, you will find all the references regarding the cases and judgements of SC/HC pertaining to NIA. I dug it out long time ago (~1 year ago) but unfortunately don't have those links bookmarked)
You might also need to consult on immediately filing a criminal complaint and if possible FIR against the branch for forcible taking cheques from you by intimidation and threat. (Do all that you can to get the FIR registered). A criminal case on there head, and the bank will come running for compromise.
Scary stuff. Amazing how the Kotak guys aren't even responding on this thread anymore. If you are from a poor family, you can always agree to payout a fix percentage of compensation you may receive from Kotak to your lawyer. You have a pretty tight case against Kotak hence a lawyer just might oblige.
I completely understand how could have been goofed while using the software. I once wanted to sell a call that I had for a strike price and I had erroneously selected another strike price while executing the order in the terminal. The terminal took it that I wanted to write that call and responded with an error for non-availability of margin. What the hell is Kotak programming these terminals on?!
I completely understand how could have been goofed while using the software. I once wanted to sell a call that I had for a strike price and I had erroneously selected another strike price while executing the order in the terminal. The terminal took it that I wanted to write that call and responded with an error for non-availability of margin. What the hell is Kotak programming these terminals on?!
Ya....red that in his initial posts. 
But the poor guy is now trapped by signing those cheques.
But now he can't risk taking NIA lightly.
Courts will not show any mercy because he is poor.
Even a bankruptcy cover won't work if the cheques come under the ambit of NIA. It would become a criminal offence.
But the poor guy is now trapped by signing those cheques.
But now he can't risk taking NIA lightly.
Courts will not show any mercy because he is poor.
Even a bankruptcy cover won't work if the cheques come under the ambit of NIA. It would become a criminal offence.
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
Pls Help...Need Upper and Lower Bollinger Band {20,1) breakout and Mid Bollinger Band (20,1) Break out exploration AFL
- Started by MasudPervezPolash
- Replies: 0
-
Amibroker (Error 61. The number of format specifier(s) (%) does not match the number of arguments passed) help me pls
- Started by andrewblalba
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
when updating eod data , the total traded range showing as last candle in 15min TF. pls helps me that how to get rid of this.
- Started by Naveenkumar125
- Replies: 0