https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102364 Civil court jurisdiction was held to remain available where a recognised stock exchange sought injunctive relief against alleged rival trading activities, because the statutory scheme contained no special adjudicatory mechanism for enforcing the prohibition. The document further notes that proposed exchange-like operations in a notified area were prima facie inconsistent with the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, where sections 13 and 19 had been extended, but that spot delivery contracts remained within the statutory exemption under section 18. The interim injunction was therefore maintained with modification so that exempt spot delivery business would not be restrained. en-us Mon, 31 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:32:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102364 Civil court jurisdiction was held to remain available where a recognised stock exchange sought injunctive relief against alleged rival trading activities, because the statutory scheme contained no special adjudicatory mechanism for enforcing the prohibition. The document further notes that proposed exchange-like operations in a notified area were prima facie inconsistent with the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, where sections 13 and 19 had been extended, but that spot delivery contracts remained within the statutory exemption under section 18. The interim injunction was therefore maintained with modification so that exempt spot delivery business would not be restrained. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 31 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102364