<?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>1997 (9) TMI 462 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103918</link>
    <description>Natural justice is flexible and depends on the urgency, subject matter, and surrounding circumstances. In the context of exchange regulation, where a trading member repeatedly breached exposure limits despite prior warning and contemporaneous intimation, immediate withdrawal of trading facilities and declaration of default were not vitiated for want of a fuller hearing. The court&#039;s reasoning accepts that abbreviated opportunity may satisfy fairness when prompt action is needed to protect market integrity and investors, and the exchange had already informed the member that the facility would be withdrawn if the excess exposure was not reduced. The challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:34:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 462 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103918</link>
      <description>Natural justice is flexible and depends on the urgency, subject matter, and surrounding circumstances. In the context of exchange regulation, where a trading member repeatedly breached exposure limits despite prior warning and contemporaneous intimation, immediate withdrawal of trading facilities and declaration of default were not vitiated for want of a fuller hearing. The court&#039;s reasoning accepts that abbreviated opportunity may satisfy fairness when prompt action is needed to protect market integrity and investors, and the exchange had already informed the member that the facility would be withdrawn if the excess exposure was not reduced. The challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>