Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Rakesh Gupta And Others, Etc. vs Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd. And ... on 9 May, 1996

Delhi Stock Exchange And Anr. vs K.C. Sharma And Ors. on 22 March, 2002

50. The matter has been considered in Rakesh Gupta and Ors. v. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd. And Ors. wherein the Division Bench noticed the dissenting voice in Kerala judgment of V. Punnan Thomas v. State of Kerala, which found support in Ramanna v. I.A. Authority of India, , Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarkm Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Radani and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1609, Dwarkanath v. Income-tax Officer, and several other decisions and held that a writ of mandamus can be issued the Stock Exchange.
Delhi High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 10 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rajendra Rathor And Anr. vs Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange And Ors. on 14 September, 1999

4. The appellants' counsel Mr. Mathur contended that the stock exchange had all the trappings of "State" and was an "authority" of the State and inasmuch as its entire functioning was governed and regulated by the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and the rules, conferring power on the Central Government to direct and regulate its functioning every inch. Under the Act it was to be recognised by the Government which could also impose conditions on it related to qualification of its members and the manner of execution of its contracts. The Government was also to nominate three of its representatives on its board and to also audit its accounts and to call for periodical reports about its functioning. All this indicated that the Government exercised effective and pervasive control over it making it an "authority" to bring it within the meaning "State" under Article 12. He alternatively argued that even if it was not regarded so, it could as well be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as it was discharging public duties and functions under the statute and the rules. He cited J.P. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178 ; Rakesh Gupta v. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd., AIR 1996 AP 413 ; [1999] 96 Comp Cas 645 and Mrs. Sejal Rikeeh Dalai v. Stock Exchange, Bombay, AIR 1991 Bom 30 ; [19901 69 Comp Cas 709 in support.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - S Singh - Full Document

Balbir Thomas vs Centre For Cellular And Molecular ... on 27 January, 1997

The learned counsel further relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Gupta v. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd., . The Division Bench held that the Stock Exchange falls within the definition of Authority and therefore the writ petition is maintainable. The Division Bench after referring to various dietas of the Supreme Court connected texts and also the English decisions summarised the powers of the High Court to issue prerogative writs like mandamus summarised in the following manner:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

S.H. Javeri vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 18 October, 1996

37. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, however, submits that this Court's jurisdiction is neither barred nor ousted to interfere even in matters which are the subject matters of debate in the Civil Court. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions and call for the records from the Court which is subordinate to it and pass orders in the interest of justice. True the Court's jurisdiction is not ousted and the Court may have the power, but the question is exercise of power. The learned Counsel placed reliance upon a division Bench decision of this Court in Rakesh Gupta v. Hyderabad Stock Exchange, . In the said decision the case law on the subject is reviewed and the Court speaking through the Hon'ble the Chief justice summarised the law thus:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - B S Reddy - Full Document

B. Srinivasa Rao vs National Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. ... on 28 October, 1996

In the instant case, the NSE is registered under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and the bye-laws and regulations applicable to the NSE being framed only with the approval of the SEBI or as directed by it, the NSE is amenable to writ jurisdiction in the light of the judgment in Rakesh Gupta's case [1999] 96 Comp Cas 645 (AP) and the nature of duty performed by the NSE being in public interest. It is a public duty and the NSE is, therefore, subject to public law and its decision subject to judicial review under article 226.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M H Ansari - Full Document
1   2 Next