904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC before execution and rendomising the time priority of orders that an Exchange receives.” 4. A second article followed on 8th July 2015.2 The combined effect of this, according to Dr. Tulzapurkar, is that the articles tend to lead “the lay reader” to conclude to the detriment of the NSE that firstly it is because of the articles that regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) and SEBI have commenced investigations; second, that there are serious wrongdoings on the part of the NSE; and third, that the NSE itself is complicit in permitting these illegal HFTs or algo trades. 5. Dr Tulzapurkar submits that these allegations are entirely false. He points to paragraph 18A of the plaint, one that was added by an amendment permitted on 24th July 2015, after the suit was filed and on the day the Notice of Motion was first moved for adinterim reliefs. 6. To understand that paragraph and what it seeks to portray, I think some background to what is being alleged is necessary. The case presented by the Defendants in their articles, at least as I understand it, is thus. The NSE, as indeed many other bourses, both here and abroad, routinely permit what is called co-location. Typically, a co-location centre (often called a ‘colo’) is a data centre that rents equipment, space, and bandwidth to retail subscribers. This allows for leveraging economies of scale, more advanced infrastructure, lower latency (lag times), upgraded system security and so on. In the present variant, I understand the complaint in the anonymous letter to mean that the NSE permitted, for a significant 2 Plaint, pp. 52 to 54. 6 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::