Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: securities contracts regulation act Page 1 of about 15,843 results (0.053 seconds)

Dec 08 1982 (HC)

Dahiben Umedbhai Patel and Others Vs. Norman James Hamilton and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR275; [1985]57CompCas700(Bom)

..... which we have taken, it is not possible for us to find any error in the view which the learned judge has taken that the present contract is not governed by the provisions of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, and is, therefore, not illegal. consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.44. prayer for leave to appeal to the ..... extinguished. an additional ground on which the claim of the plaintiffs was contested was that the contract for the purchase of shares was illegal and could not be enforced having regard to the provisions of the securities contract (regulation) act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulation act').5. the learned single judge held that cl. 6 of the agreement dated december 23, 1966 ..... government and this bill was referred to an expert committee under the chairmanship of mr. a. d. gorwalla. the present act is a result of the recommendations of the gorwalla committee which were formulated in the form of securities contracts (regulation) bill, 1954. one of the terms of reference of the committee was to consider draft proposals of the government on ..... the subject of stock exchange regulation.17. now, s. 4 of the regulation act provides for grant of recognition to stock exchanges. before granting recognition, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1978 (HC)

Norman J. Hamilton and anr. Vs. Umedbhai S. Patel and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR340; [1979]49CompCas1(Bom)

..... a reduction in price in view of these discoveries of debts and the entire price is now extinguished. the defendants have also pleaded that under the provisions of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, the above contract for the purchase of shares is illegal and it cannot be enforced. 4. on these pleadings the following issues price for consideration : (1) whether the plaintiffs made representations ..... of the shares by annual installments. it is, therefore, not a 'spot delivery contract' as defined under s. 2 sub-s. (1), of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the act'). a 'spot delivery contract' is defined under the act as follows : 'spot delivery contract' means a contract which provides for the actual delivery of securities and the payment of a price therefor either on the same day as ..... this notification. 19. now, in order to appreciate this contention of the defendants, we have to examine whether the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, applies to the suit contract. the suit contract is for the sale of shares in a private limited company. it is also a contract under which admittedly the controlling interest in the private limited company is transferred from the plaintiffs to the defendants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1966 (HC)

V. Juia Vs. S. Dalmia

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1968Bom347; (1968)70BOMLR20

..... merely for the protection of its own interests of the investing public which is one of its duties as can be seen from clause (a) of section 4 of the securities contracts (regulation) act 1956. in that sense not only was the stock exchange entitled to appear, but it was under a duty to appear and it has discharged not only its personal function ..... sub-section (1) of s. 9 and include pre-recognition bye-laws also within its ambit.(37) mr. sanghvi then contended that sub-section (1) of s. 10 of the securities contracts (regulation) act confers on the central government a power independently of a stock exchange to 'make bye-laws for all or any of the matters specified in s. 9 or amend any ..... reject this second contention of mr. sanghvi.(28) the third contention of mr. sanghvi was that, in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) of s. 9 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, the bye-laws of the stock exchange, bombay, would have been valid only if they had been published in the gazette of india and also in the official gazette ..... after they had been sanctioned by the central government in 1957 and hence the bye-laws had not become effective having regard to the provisions of s. 9 of the securities contracts (regulation) act of 1956.(5) these two contentions, although not taken by the respondent in the affidavits filed on their behalf, were foreshadowed when this petition reached hearing before another judge of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2003 (HC)

P. Ravinder Vs. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [2004]121CompCas275(AP); (2004)4CompLJ201(AP); [2004]49SCL43(AP)

..... section 3 it becomes a regulatory body and a regulatory body without the power to cancel fraudulent and manipulated transactions will not be able to discharge its functions under the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. he refers to a judgment in reserve bank of india v. peerless general finance & investment co. ltd. : [1996]1scr58 . this was a case in which ..... was made on behalf of the respondents that in view of the language of section 9(2)(k) of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, which reads as follows :'the regulation of the entering into, making, performance, recession and termination of contracts, including contracts between members or between a member and his constituent or between a member and a person who is not a ..... power to frame bye-laws. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the bye-laws are made in terms of companies act and not under the power available under the securities contracts (regulation) act. we are not able to appreciate this contention for the reason that, if the respondent no. 1 has not the power to ..... as to how the stock exchange works and how it is created. he refers to securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. this act was promulgated to prevent undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the business of dealing therein by providing for certain other matters connected therewith. section 3 of the act lays down that, any stock exchange, which is desirous of being recognized for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1994 (HC)

D.L. Walton Vs. CochIn Stock Exchange Ltd. and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1995Ker106

..... is precluded from carrying on such business within the district of ernakulam by virtue of the notification issued under the securities contracts (regulation) act. there is a further contention that in the light of section 19 of the securities contracts (regulation) act which had been brought into force in the area in question, the activity by the first defendant would be in ..... would indicate that the business that the first defendant proposes to carry on would be a business that comes within the prohibition enacted by section 19 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. the objects and reasons of the first defendant company as quoted in the counter affidavit of the fifth defendant also justifies the apprehension of the plaintiff ..... 5-1989 that the central government had granted recognition to the plaintiff as an exchange under section 4 of the securities contracts (regulation) act. ext. a4 shows that in exercise of the powers conferred under section 13 of the securities contracts (regulation) act the central government had declared that section 13 shall apply to the ernakulam district of kerala state and also ..... place of business. according to the plaintiff the activities carried on by the first defendant company are illegal and are against sections 13 and 19 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. according to the plaintiff the various advertisements issued by the first defendant company clearly make out that it proposes to function as a parallel stock exchange .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1993 (HC)

C.P. Radhakrishnan Vs. CochIn Stock Exchange Ltd. and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1994]80CompCas247(Ker)

..... is precluded from carrying on such business within the district of ernakulam by virtue of the notification issued under the securities contracts (regulation) act. there is a further contention that in the light of section 19 of the securities contracts (regulation) act which had been brought into force in the area in question, the activity by the first defendant would be in ..... 1989, that the central government had granted recognition to the plaintiff as an exchange under section 4 of the securities contracts (regulation) act. exhibit a-4 shows that in exercise of the powers conferred under section 13 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, the central government had declared that section 13 shall apply to the ernakulam district of kerala state and also ..... suit is filed on the basis that by attempting to carry on similar operations within the area of ernakulam district the defendants are violating the provisions of the securities contracts (regulation) act and thereby interfering with the exclusive right of the plaintiff and that, therefore, the defendants are liable to be restrained by a decree of injunction from ..... place of business. according to the plaintiff, the activities carried on by the first defendant-company are illegal and are against sections 13 and 19 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. according to the plaintiff, the various advertisements issued by the first defendant-company clearly make out that it proposes to function as a parallel stock exchange .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1998 (HC)

A. Vaidyanathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2000]101CompCas224(Mad)

..... be subject to the approval of the central government. the bye-laws and the rules of the company shall be subject to the provisions of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. similarly the act provides for regulatory measures like recognition, withdrawal of recognition, direction to make rules, power to suspend business and power to supersede the governing body. ..... it is amenable to writ jurisdiction after considering the various articles of association of the cochin stock exchange as well as the provisions of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, and the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992, and after discussing various decisions of the supreme court including the decision rendered in ajay hasia v. khalid mujib sehravadi, : (1981 ..... to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. no such provision either in the securities contracts (regulations) act, 1956, or the securities and exchange board of india act is forthcoming. in that view of the matter, i am clearly of the opinion that the stock exchange in exercising its power ..... the respondents herein, which is pending in the supreme court of india. the writ petition which was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the securities contracts (regulation) act and the rules made thereunder, was withdrawn by them on august 1, 1988. after the withdrawal of the writ petition, he received a communication dated july .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1994 (HC)

Kinetic Engineering Limited Vs. Unit Trust of India, and Another

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1995Bom194; 1995(3)BomCR656; [1995]84CompCas910(Bom)

..... the board of directors of the appellants also took intoconsideration the reply received from the sebi wherein it was indicated that the appellants may follow a procedure as per securities contract (regulation) act, 1956/cornpanies act, while taking decision with regard to the registration of transfer. as required by section 22a(4)(c) the appellants made a reference to the clb and forwarded copies ..... on behalf of the appellants the main contentions which are urged before me are :firstly, that the clb, while considering the reference under section 22a(4)(c) of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, has no power to go into the question about the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the board of directors of the appellants refusing the registration having concluded ..... given to the company law boardand if all these provisions are read it does appear that there is not much of a change made in section 22a of the securities contracts (regulation) act 1956 under which now an appeal has been provided against the refusal of the company to transfer the share certificate. shri seervai therefore contended that the earlier interpretation put ..... and or condition of listing agreement laid down in pursuance of such laws or rules envisaged under clause (b) of sub-sec. (3) of s. 22a of the securities contracts (regulation) act. i will consider that aspect later on. first i am considering on an assumption that the said guidelines do fall under the said clause. on behalf of the appellants it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1998 (HC)

Vinay Bubna Vs. Yogesh Mehta and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1999(2)ALLMR129; 1998(4)BomCR849

..... question has now to be considered. for the purpose of considering the said question it will be necessary to look into the provisions of the arbitration act, 1996, the arbitration act, 1940 and the securities contracts(regulation) act, 1956. the relevant provisions to the extent that they are necessary are being reproduced herein below. sub-sections (4) and (5) of ..... a stock exchange, includes, in the case of a stock exchange which is an incorporated association, its memorandum and articles of association.'section 7-a of the securities contracts (regulations) act, 1956 confers a power on a recognised stock exchange to make rules restricting voting rights, etc. amongst other rules, rules can be made to restrict voting rights ..... to the powers conferred under section 9 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the securities contract act, is empowered with the previous approval of the securities & exchange board of india to make bye-laws for the regulation and control of contracts. the bombay stock exchange at the commencement of the securities contract act had already framed bye-laws. in other words they ..... far as is otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, the provisions of this act shall apply to all arbitrations and to all proceedings thereunder.'8. bye-laws have been framed under the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. the entire argument is based on the assumption that the arbitration agreement as provided under the bye .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 2001 (HC)

Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. V.B. Desai and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2002(2)ALLMR182; [2002]112CompCas143(Bom)

..... not. over and above, it must be also established whether scrips involved in this case were covered under the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956 or not.17. as rightly pointed out by mr. shah, as per the definition of 'securities' in the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, it is clear that the scrips which were issued by a mutual fund which is a trust, ..... prohibited? therefore, on these two issues; viz. whether the transactions involved were of ready forward transactions or not, and whether the scrips involved were covered under the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956 or not, evidence will have to be led, and merely by reading the plaint and correspondence and so also the aforesaid judgment of the supreme court, it ..... is the contention of mr. tulzapurkar that the plaint along with its exhibits clearly contemplate that the transactions involved were ready forward transactions, which are prohibited by the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, and the position in law has been made explicitly clear by the aforesaid decision of the supreme court in b.o.i. finance limited's case.5 ..... tulzapurkar, the learned counsel for the defendants has contended that in case of ready forward transaction, forward leg is illegal as the same is not permissible under the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. mr. tulzapurkar has further contended that in the instant case the transactions involved were in the nature of ready forward transactions, and therefore, in the light .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //