Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
5Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bombay High Court Judgment

Bombay High Court Judgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,038 |Likes:
Published by Pallavi Sawhney

More info:

Published by: Pallavi Sawhney on Mar 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
VBC
1
wp213.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.WRIT PETITION NO.213 OF 2011 
MCX Stock Exchange Limited. ...Petitioner.Vs.Securities & Exchange Board of India & Ors. ...Respondents.....Mr.C.Aryama Sundaram, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.J.Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nitin Potdar i/b. J.Sagar Associates for thePetitioner.Mr.Darius J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor General withMr.Shiraz Rustomjee, Mr.Aditya Mehta, Mr.Jayesh K.Ashar,Mr.Mihir Mody, Mr.Rajesh Talekar, Mr.Mobin Sheikh and Mr.FaizKhan i/b. Ashar & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ameet B.Naik and Mr.Abhishek Kale i/b. Naik, Naik & Co. for Respondent No.3.Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Munir Merchatfor Respondent No.4...... 
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD ANDANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ.March 14, 2012
.
JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.):
1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consentof Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearingand final disposal.2. The Whole Time Member of the Securities and Exchange
 
VBC
2
wp213.11
Board of India has rejected an application filed by the Petitionerfor permission to undertake business as a Stock Exchange, otherthan for the Currency Derivatives Segment. The order is underSection 4 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956(SCRA) and Sections 11(1) and 19 of the Securities and ExchangeBoard of India Act, 1992. The Petition challenges the legality othe order.3. For convenience of exposition, this judgment is dividedinto Parts, which are as follows:
I - Facts.
1
 
II - Show Cause Notice by SEBI and the Impugned order.
2
III- Submissions.
3
IV - The SCRA and MIMPs Regulations.
4
V - Role of Stock Exchanges.
5
VI - Regulation 4 and Regulation 8.
6
VII- The process of dilution.
7
1Paragraphs 4-272Paragraphs 28-303Paragraphs 31-364Paragraphs 37-465Paragraphs 47-536Paragraphs 54-557Paragraphs 56-57
 
VBC
3
wp213.11
VIII- Share warrants.
8
IX - Buy back arrangements.
9
X - Duty of disclosure.
XI - Legality of buy backs.
XII – Persons Acting in concert.
XIII- The Validity of the impugned order.
XIV- Conclusion.
I
:
Facts.
4. The Fourth Respondent, Multi Commodity Exchange oIndia Limited, who is a promoter of the Petitioner made anapplication on 12 August 2008 for recognition of the Petitioner asa Stock Exchange. The Petitioner was incorporated on 14 August2008 and received a certificate for commencement of business on19 August 2008. The Petitioner has two promoters, FinancialTechnologies (India) Limited (FTIL) and Multi CommoditiesExchange of India (MCX), the Third
and
the Fourth Respondents.
8Paragraphs 58-629paragraphs 63-6610 Paragraphs 67-6911 Paragraphs 70-8112 Paragraphs 82-9313 Paragraphs 94-10314 Paragraph 104

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->