TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a stock exchange and whether the arbitration clause in its Bye-Laws bars recourse to writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the absence of a show cause notice, non-furnishing of documents, alleged ante-dating, and alleged delay or pendency of investigation vitiated the impugned action on principles of natural justice; (iii) whether the governing Board that took the impugned decision was validly constituted under the regulatory framework.
Issue (i): Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a stock exchange and whether the arbitration clause in its Bye-Laws bars recourse to writ jurisdiction.
Analysis: A stock exchange performs public functions and is amenable to writ scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The existence of an arbitration clause does not, by itself, oust constitutional jurisdiction. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 operates only when a reference to arbitration is sought in the manner recognised by that provision, and the constitutional remedy cannot be curtailed by subordinate bye-laws. The arbitration clause was also treated as ineffective in the circumstances because the proposed arbitrator was connected with one of the parties.
Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed and the writ petition was held maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a show cause notice, non-furnishing of documents, alleged ante-dating, and alleged delay or pendency of investigation vitiated the impugned action on principles of natural justice.
Analysis: The notice dated 4 March 2004 was treated as a sufficient show cause notice because it set out the alleged violations and sought item-wise explanation. Repeated opportunities were given to the writ petitioners to furnish documents and answers, but they did not cooperate fully. The alleged non-supply of the inspection report and other materials did not establish prejudice, since the core contents had been reflected in the notice and the remaining materials were either correspondence or public regulatory documents. The allegation of ante-dating was unsupported, and the delay in culmination of the matter was attributed substantially to the petitioners' own conduct. The alleged prior exoneration by SEBI and the so-called no-dues communication did not extinguish the CSE's independent power to proceed for breach of its Bye-Laws.
Conclusion: The challenge on natural justice, ante-dating, and pendency of investigation was rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether the governing Board that took the impugned decision was validly constituted under the regulatory framework.
Analysis: Regulation 23 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2018 requires the Governing Board to include shareholder directors, public interest directors, and a managing director. The exemption from appointing a managing director did not amount to an exemption from the requirement of shareholder directors. A Board consisting only of public interest directors lacked the mandated composition and proper quorum under the regulatory scheme.
Conclusion: The impugned decision was invalid because the Board that passed it was unlawfully constituted.
Final Conclusion: The investigation prior to the impugned decision was upheld, but the final decision of 15 March 2022 could not stand and a fresh decision was directed by a properly constituted Board; the security deposit was to remain withheld until that fresh decision was taken.
Ratio Decidendi: A stock exchange exercising public functions remains subject to writ jurisdiction, an arbitration clause in its Bye-Laws does not bar constitutional review, and a decision taken by a governing Board not constituted in the manner mandated by the governing regulations is invalid.
TaxTMI 
