<?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>2010 (1) TMI 574 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113666</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the Bombay High Court&#039;s decision that the petitioner did not establish any mala fides or irregularities by BSE. The court found that the pre-recognition rules and bye-laws of BSE were valid, not necessitating publication under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. However, the court recommended publishing such rules and bye-laws in the Official Gazette to prevent future disputes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 574 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113666</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the Bombay High Court&#039;s decision that the petitioner did not establish any mala fides or irregularities by BSE. The court found that the pre-recognition rules and bye-laws of BSE were valid, not necessitating publication under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. However, the court recommended publishing such rules and bye-laws in the Official Gazette to prevent future disputes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>