9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of order dismissing writ petition challenging imposition of default fee by stock exchange. Analysis: The appellant challenged the order dismissing the writ petition regarding the imposition of a default fee by the stock exchange. The appellant, a defaulter member of the stock exchange, was aggrieved by the levy of a 10% default fee as per the bye law of the stock exchange. The Single Judge relied on a previous decision stating that the power to regulate admission or expulsion of members by stock exchanges is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. However, the appellant cited a different decision where it was held that non-statutory authorities like stock exchanges performing public duty are subject to writ jurisdiction. The main issue was whether the imposition of the default fee by the stock exchange constitutes a discharge of public duty. The court noted that the stock exchange performs various functions, and in this case, the focus was on the imposition of the default fee. The court observed contrasting principles in different decisions regarding the functions of stock exchanges. However, the court decided not to determine the correct legal position as it was not essential for the current case. The court considered the relevant clause in the articles of association of the stock exchange which governs the internal affairs and obligations of its members. The appellant's default led to the collection of the default fee as per the articles and bye-law, which was viewed as part of the internal management of the stock exchange, not a public duty. The appellant argued that the bye-law suffered from excessive delegation of powers, making it ultra vires of the constitution. However, since the appellant was a signatory to the articles of association, the court held that the appellant could not challenge the provisions contained therein. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ appeal and dismissed it.
|
