https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784906 A stock exchange performing public functions remains amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and an arbitration clause in its Bye-Laws does not oust that constitutional remedy; the writ petition was therefore maintainable. The court also rejected the natural justice challenge, holding that the notice dated 4 March 2004 sufficiently disclosed the alleged violations, that non-supply of further materials caused no shown prejudice, and that alleged ante-dating or delay did not vitiate the proceedings. However, the impugned decision of 15 March 2022 failed because the Governing Board was not validly constituted in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework, so a fresh decision had to be taken by a properly constituted Board. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:56:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784906 A stock exchange performing public functions remains amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and an arbitration clause in its Bye-Laws does not oust that constitutional remedy; the writ petition was therefore maintainable. The court also rejected the natural justice challenge, holding that the notice dated 4 March 2004 sufficiently disclosed the alleged violations, that non-supply of further materials caused no shown prejudice, and that alleged ante-dating or delay did not vitiate the proceedings. However, the impugned decision of 15 March 2022 failed because the Governing Board was not validly constituted in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework, so a fresh decision had to be taken by a properly constituted Board. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784906