<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (4) TMI 199 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101862</link>
    <description>A recognised stock exchange performing public duties may be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 because it operates under statutory supervision and serves public interest in regulating securities dealings. Its refusal to admit a nominee member was upheld, as membership under the exchange rules was a permission subject to election and compliance with suitability and liability requirements, not an inalienable property right. On the materials before it, the board&#039;s decision was treated as a bona fide exercise of regulatory discretion to preserve probity and fair dealing, and it was not shown to violate Articles 19(1)(g) or 300A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:37:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 199 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101862</link>
      <description>A recognised stock exchange performing public duties may be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 because it operates under statutory supervision and serves public interest in regulating securities dealings. Its refusal to admit a nominee member was upheld, as membership under the exchange rules was a permission subject to election and compliance with suitability and liability requirements, not an inalienable property right. On the materials before it, the board&#039;s decision was treated as a bona fide exercise of regulatory discretion to preserve probity and fair dealing, and it was not shown to violate Articles 19(1)(g) or 300A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>