<?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>1994 (10) TMI 210 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102561</link>
    <description>Challenge was raised to the constitutional validity of regulation 10 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992, read with Schedule III, and to the basis and quantum of registration fees payable by stock brokers. The matter was not finally decided on the merits at this stage: an expert committee was constituted to examine the fee structure and related issues, and the hearing was directed to be taken up again later.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:07:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 210 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102561</link>
      <description>Challenge was raised to the constitutional validity of regulation 10 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992, read with Schedule III, and to the basis and quantum of registration fees payable by stock brokers. The matter was not finally decided on the merits at this stage: an expert committee was constituted to examine the fee structure and related issues, and the hearing was directed to be taken up again later.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>