https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103352 A stock exchange performing settlement and clearing functions was held amenable to judicial review under Article 226 because its regulatory bye-laws operate in the public interest and discharge a public duty. On the merits, the initial postponement of a settlement was justified where the exchange had relevant material suggesting suspected fraud or market manipulation and its regulations permitted postponement in public interest or on just and equitable principles of trade; however, that postponement could not continue indefinitely and had to end in a final decision. The alternative contractual remedy objection was rejected because no final settlement decision had yet crystallised, so an effective remedy was not then available. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103352 A stock exchange performing settlement and clearing functions was held amenable to judicial review under Article 226 because its regulatory bye-laws operate in the public interest and discharge a public duty. On the merits, the initial postponement of a settlement was justified where the exchange had relevant material suggesting suspected fraud or market manipulation and its regulations permitted postponement in public interest or on just and equitable principles of trade; however, that postponement could not continue indefinitely and had to end in a final decision. The alternative contractual remedy objection was rejected because no final settlement decision had yet crystallised, so an effective remedy was not then available. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103352