Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court upholds guidelines for stock exchange member selection, deems modifications valid</h1> <h3>Ojas V. Khokhadagi Versus Saurashtra Kutchha Stock Exchange Ltd.</h3> The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the guidelines for selecting members of the Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange. It found the Screening ... Recognition of stock exchanges Issues Involved:1. Legality of the guidelines issued on 9-11-1989 for the selection of members of the Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange.2. Adherence to and modification of the guidelines by the Screening Committee.3. Validity of the selection process of the members of the Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange.4. Jurisdiction and scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Guidelines Issued on 9-11-1989:The writ petitions challenged the grant of membership to the Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution. The guidelines issued by the Government of India on 9-11-1989 were intended to ensure minimum standards of competence, integrity, and financial solvency for brokers. These guidelines included criteria such as education, experience, financial solvency, and interview performance. The guidelines mandated that applicants must obtain a minimum of 10 points on each criterion and an aggregate score of at least 50 points to be selected as brokers.2. Adherence to and Modification of the Guidelines by the Screening Committee:The Screening Committee, appointed by the Stock Exchange, modified the guidelines issued on 9-11-1989. The Committee laid down new norms for the selection of members, which included changes in the allocation of maximum marks for different criteria. For example, the maximum marks for financial position and interview were increased, while those for educational qualifications and experience were reduced. The Committee also set specific age and educational qualifications for applicants. These modifications were communicated to the Government of India, which subsequently approved the changes.3. Validity of the Selection Process of the Members of the Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange:The Screening Committee's selection process involved inviting applications, setting norms, and conducting interviews. Despite some complaints and a writ petition regarding the exclusion of eligible candidates, the Committee followed a structured process, including engaging a computer agency to process applications. The Committee's norms were ultimately approved by the Government of India, and the selection process was completed accordingly. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' claims that the selection process violated the guidelines or was arbitrary.4. Jurisdiction and Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution:The Court examined whether the guidelines issued on 9-11-1989 were statutory conditions under Section 4 of the Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956. It concluded that the guidelines were not statutory as they were not part of the order of recognition and were not imposed after consultation with the governing body of the Stock Exchange, as required by Section 4(1)(b). The Court also considered whether administrative guidelines could confer rights and be enforced through a writ petition. It held that while guidelines could be binding, they could also be varied by the issuing authority. In this case, the modifications made by the Screening Committee were approved by the Government of India, making them valid.Conclusion:The writ petitions were dismissed as the Court found no merit in the claims. The Screening Committee's norms, as approved by the Government of India, were deemed valid, and the selection process was upheld. The Court also vacated the interim orders.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found