<?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>2003 (10) TMI 387 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108340</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the legality and validity of an administrative circular moving securities to trade for trade segment without a hearing, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s challenge. The decision was deemed lawful, temporary, and necessary to protect small investors and market integrity. The Court emphasized the expertise behind the decision and its aim to prevent manipulation. It dismissed claims of arbitrariness and discrimination, noting the decision&#039;s transitory nature and the absence of challenges from other affected parties. Judicial review was limited due to the Court&#039;s lack of expertise in share markets, ultimately leading to the petition&#039;s dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:52:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 387 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108340</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the legality and validity of an administrative circular moving securities to trade for trade segment without a hearing, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s challenge. The decision was deemed lawful, temporary, and necessary to protect small investors and market integrity. The Court emphasized the expertise behind the decision and its aim to prevent manipulation. It dismissed claims of arbitrariness and discrimination, noting the decision&#039;s transitory nature and the absence of challenges from other affected parties. Judicial review was limited due to the Court&#039;s lack of expertise in share markets, ultimately leading to the petition&#039;s dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>