Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Court rules in favor of Petitioners, rejects retrospective NSE guidelines, orders compensation

        Satya Prakash Aggarwal Versus National Stock Exchange of India

        Satya Prakash Aggarwal Versus National Stock Exchange of India - [2006] 69 SCL 115 (BOM.) Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of the 2002 Guidelines issued by the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and their retrospective application.
        2. Admissibility of claims under the 1996 Guidelines and the Bye-laws of NSE.
        3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain writ petitions against the NSE.
        4. Validity of the claims for compensation from the Investor Protection Fund (IPF).
        5. Procedural fairness in the rejection of claims by the NSE.

        Comprehensive Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legality of the 2002 Guidelines and Their Retrospective Application:

        The Petitioners challenged the 2002 Guidelines issued by the NSE, arguing that their claims should be governed by the 1996 Guidelines, which were in force when their claims were made. The Court noted that the 2002 Guidelines do not have any retrospective effect, as there is no indication, either expressly or impliedly, that they should be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the 2002 Guidelines could only be prospectively applied and thus, the Petitioners' claims should be considered under the 1996 Guidelines.

        2. Admissibility of Claims Under the 1996 Guidelines and the Bye-laws of NSE:

        The Court examined the relevant provisions of the 1996 Guidelines and the Bye-laws of NSE. According to Chapter XIII of the Bye-laws, the Investor Protection Fund (IPF) was created to compensate any person, including a trading member or constituent, who suffers a loss due to a trading member being declared a defaulter. The 1996 Guidelines, under II(1)(iii), allowed claims arising out of money in the hands of the trading member pending investment or money improperly dealt with. The Court found that the Petitioners' claims fell under this provision, as the trading member had improperly dealt with their funds.

        3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain Writ Petitions Against the NSE:

        The Court addressed the preliminary issue of whether a writ petition could be filed against the NSE. It referred to previous judgments, including Sejal Rikeen Dalal v. Stock Exchange and Trilochana K. Doshi v. Stock Exchange of India, which held that a writ petition is maintainable against a stock exchange. The Court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, reinforcing that private bodies exercising public functions are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court held that the writ petitions against the NSE were maintainable.

        4. Validity of the Claims for Compensation from the Investor Protection Fund (IPF):

        The Court scrutinized the 1996 Guidelines and the 2000 Bye-laws to determine the validity of the Petitioners' claims for compensation. It noted that the 1996 Guidelines did not require transactions to be processed through the NEAT System of the NSE for claims to be valid. The Court rejected the NSE's argument that the claims were disallowed due to the transactions not being reflected in the NEAT System. The Court held that the claims were valid under the 1996 Guidelines and the 2000 Bye-laws, as the Petitioners' funds were improperly dealt with by the trading member.

        5. Procedural Fairness in the Rejection of Claims by the NSE:

        The Court examined the procedural fairness in the rejection of the Petitioners' claims by the NSE. It found that the NSE's rejection of the claims based on the 2002 Guidelines was improper, as these guidelines did not apply retrospectively. The Court also noted that the NSE had compensated other investors who had placed funds with the same trading member, indicating inconsistency in the application of the guidelines. The Court held that the rejection of the Petitioners' claims was arbitrary and not in accordance with the 1996 Guidelines and the Bye-laws.

        Conclusion:

        The Court concluded that the Petitioners were entitled to enforce the 1996 Guidelines and the 2000 Bye-laws against the NSE and claim compensation for the loss sustained. The letters rejecting the Petitioners' claims were quashed and set aside. The Court directed the NSE to compensate the Petitioners for their losses, up to the prescribed limit, after deducting any amounts already received. The judgment was stayed for six weeks on the application of the NSE's counsel.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found