<?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>1999 (4) TMI 501 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104167</link>
    <description>A claim for ad interim injunction based on alleged breach of natural justice failed where the plaintiff had, in its own representation, admitted that an employee made unauthorised access to the Exchange&#039;s surveillance terminal and had been suspended. The Court treated that conduct as misconduct affecting trading integrity and fairness, and held that the repeated representations already gave the plaintiff an effective chance to explain its position. A further pre-decisional personal hearing was therefore a useless formality. The Court also noted that proportionality of punishment could not be examined at the interlocutory stage, and found no prima facie case for interim relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:51:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 501 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104167</link>
      <description>A claim for ad interim injunction based on alleged breach of natural justice failed where the plaintiff had, in its own representation, admitted that an employee made unauthorised access to the Exchange&#039;s surveillance terminal and had been suspended. The Court treated that conduct as misconduct affecting trading integrity and fairness, and held that the repeated representations already gave the plaintiff an effective chance to explain its position. A further pre-decisional personal hearing was therefore a useless formality. The Court also noted that proportionality of punishment could not be examined at the interlocutory stage, and found no prima facie case for interim relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>