<?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>2014 (5) TMI 901 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247974</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2012, holding that the regulations are constitutional and valid. The court found that the regulations do not violate the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, are within SEBI&#039;s statutory powers, and are necessary to ensure transparency, financial stability, and integrity in the securities market. The regulations&#039; requirements for ownership and governance structure of stock exchanges were upheld as necessary for market development and investor protection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 901 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247974</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2012, holding that the regulations are constitutional and valid. The court found that the regulations do not violate the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, are within SEBI&#039;s statutory powers, and are necessary to ensure transparency, financial stability, and integrity in the securities market. The regulations&#039; requirements for ownership and governance structure of stock exchanges were upheld as necessary for market development and investor protection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>