904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC think that it is at all possible for the NSE to try and retrofit answers in this fashion. Even assuming that the contents of paragraph 18A of the plaint are correct, I do not see how Ms. Dalal’s articles could be said to be defamatory on account of an answer that came after those articles rather than being given before them when an answer was indeed sought. This is putting the cart very firmly before the horse. What paragraph 18A says is hardly public-domain material. What the NSE seems to be saying to Ms. Dalal is something like this: “your articles are per se defamatory because they are contrary to the information we now provide in our plaint but which we did not provide before you wrote your articles, though you did seek our response.” There is certainly something of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in this formulation and possibly even the post hoc fallacy, for temporal sequencing is integral to causality in defamation actions. The Plaintiffs’ answer in paragraph 18A of the plaint is therefore far too little far too late. 18. I do not think it necessary to examine NSE’s past record in any great detail. This is not because Dr. Tulzapurkar claims it to be entirely irrelevant, though he may be right to some extent, but because it is a needless distraction at this stage. What is not, however, irrelevant is a point that Mr. Basu makes in his written submissions, that even following the report complained of, apart from the NSE itself there has been a very considerable amount of material in the public domain that indicates that these matters at the NSE, i.e., specifically algo or HFT trades are being investigated, and this is being done at the highest possible level, including the chairman of SEBI. Some of this material is appended 18 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::