New members admitted through public issue of shares and through dilution of existing shareholding were required to pay to tile Delhi Stock Exchange an additional number refundable deposit of Rs 3 lakhs and Rs 1 lakh respectively which amount was to be utilised by the Delhi Stock Exchange for making provision to improve the services and providing a better infrastructure.
12223 of 1985, in which certain interim orders were made.
878 of 1989 under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming to be a double graduate, B.Com.,
Section 4 provided for the necessity to secure recognition for transacting business in securities.
Reference was made to the case of one Smt Nirmala Kumari Jain who was selected as the member of the Stock Exchange.
The companystitution of the Expert Committee was also questioned as violative of Article 14 on account of the inclusion of Directors Members of the Delhi Stock Exchange in the Expert Committee.
The issue of shares through dilution of existing members was, however, restricted to authorised assistants of members of Delhi Stock Exchange, daughters sons or direct dependents of the members, The Delhi Stock Exchange was directed to take immediate steps to increase the membership on the aforesaid terms and companyditions, By a subsequent letter dated February 12, 1987, the Central Government modified the term in regard to the deposit money by making it transferable.
Civil Appeal No.
He was out of touch with the Stock Exchange since 1965 66 and, therefore, he was number abreast with the current developments in the field of finance and capital issues.
Obviously, the challenge was based on Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petition was dismissed by the High Court and hence the present appeal.
She being the joint shareholder along with her husband was entitled to be registered as a shareholder by virtue of Instruction No.
While this companyrespondence was in progress a writ petition was filed by one Mr Saigal, being Civil Writ Petition No.
In 1976 he gave up practice and joined the Delhi University as a full time lecturer in Law.
Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by special leave.
Merely because the petitioner appellant had worked in the Stock Exchange in the past did number entitle him to priority.
While he was practicing he was also teaching in the Faculty of Law of the Delhi University between 1971 and 1976.
4712 of 1990.
Correspondence ensued between the Delhi Stock Exchange and the Central Government in this companynection to find the ways and means to improve the working of the Delhi Stock Exchange with a view to providing improved services to the investors.
which knowledge was essential for the effective functioning of the Stock Exchange and companytrol of capital issues.
It is, however, number necessary to refer to the same because after the Central Governments approval companyveyed by the letter of February 5, 1987, that writ petition became infructuous and was so disposed of by the order dated February 18, 1987.
His companytention before the High Court and before us was that he was a double graduate, B.A., LL.B., with a postgraduate qualification, L.L.M. in Commercial Laws from Utkal University.
One Kamlesh Kumar Jain has preferred a Writ Petition No.
He companytends that the Expert Committee had wrongly rejected his application for being admitted to the membership of the Stock Exchange and has also prayed that the total membership should be increased to 500 and a fresh advertisement inviting applications from members of the public should be issued thereafter.
The learned companynsel appearing for the respective parties were heard at length.
On the one hand there was the problem of servicing the investors with the number of members being small there was also companysiderable difficulty experienced on account of the paucity of accommodation.
Mr Prem Chand Jain was the President of the Expert Committee, Mr Pandey was the Executive Director of Delhi Stock Exchange whereas the other two members were the numberinees of the Central Government on the Board of Directors of the Delhi Stock Exchange.
L.L.B. and a postgraduate M.Com.
The High Court numbericed that the companymunication informing the petitioner of his number selection but it appears that he was placed on the waiting list was companyveyed to him in July 1988 whereas he had preferred the writ petition on April 30, 1990.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. came to be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 on June 25, 1947.
with 8 years experience in Delhi Stock Exchange.
The selection of 250 members was to be made on objective criteria taking into companysideration the experience, professional qualifications and other relevant factors through an Expert Committee to be companystituted for that purpose.
She, therefore, companytended that the allegations made, insofar as her husband as a member is companycerned, appear to be misplaced and the result of a lack of information.
It may here be mentioned that the Expert Committee companystituted nine members but according to the petitioner appellant he was interviewed on January 16, 1988, by i Mr Prem Chand Jain, ii Mr Paul Joseph, iii Mr R.N. Bansal and iv Mr R.K. Pandey.
The High Court rejected the companytentions urged in support of the writ petition and dismissed the same by its judgment dated April 18, 1990.
It was provided that all new members shall have to pay an admission fee of Rs 1 lakh.
But the Expert Committee did number select him.
Thereafter he practiced Law in the High Court of Delhi and companyrts subordinate thereto between 1965 and 1976.
Ultimately on February 5, 1987, the Government of India while replying to the letter of the Delhi Stock Exchange dated January 15, 1987, companyveyed its approval to the proposal for increasing membership subject to certain companyditions as under The membership of the Stock Exchange be increased by 250 members, that is a 125 members through public issue of shares and b 125 members through dilution of shareholding of each member from two shares to one share.
With the passage of time the volume of work increased and the total number of members who companyld transact business in securities in the Delhi Stock Exchange being limited certain difficulties were experienced in the matter of servicing the investors.
On June 4, 1987, he applied for membership of the Delhi Stock Exchange at the age of 60 years.
By that writ petition the petitioner had questioned his number selection by the Expert Committee.
The High Court also did number find any merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same in limine.
1357 of 1990 filed by Om Prakash Poplai on May 7, 1990.
However, on June 10, 1987, one Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi questioning the terms of the approval granted by the Central Government on the ground that they were arbitrary, illegal and void being discriminatory and companytrary to public policy and prejudicial to public interest.
The case put up by the petitioner appellant in the High Court was that he had answered all the questions companyrectly and has denied the averment that he was number able to answer questions put to ascertain his knowledge in current laws affecting capital issues, numberms for debentures, protection of shareholders, guidelines for bonus issues, etc.
He had worked as a Member of the Punjab Stock Exchange, Lahore, from 1944 to 1947 before his migration to Delhi where he worked as a Member of the Delhi Stock Exchange from 1951 to 1965.
4711 of 1990 arises out of an order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which rejected the Writ Petition No.
He was also enrolled as an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India.
3 on the application form and was accordingly registered as a shareholder on May 10, 1990 on the death of her husband.
A bald companytention was raised in the petition that he was put only one question, namely, What are specified shares to which he had given an appropriate and companyrect answer but numberother question had been put to him as alleged in the companynter filed on behalf of the Delhi Stock Exchange.
It is, further, pointed out that the percentage of marks reserved for the interview was only 20 and, therefore, it is number right to companytend that the decision of the Expert Committee was vitiated as being arbitrary and against the principles relevant to Article 14 of the Constitution.
were also made therein.
The position, insofar as she is companycerned, was clarified by her in paragraph 13 of her companynter affidavit by pointing out that her husband late Gian Chand Jain was admitted to the membership of the Stock Exchange on April 24, 1990, as intimated by the telegram of April 30, 1990 and a share certificate Was Issued in the joint names of her husband and herself dated April 24, 1990.
In pursuance thereof, the Delhi Stock Exchange secured recognition from the Central Government.
The Securities Contracts Regulation Act, 1956 was brought into force with effect from February 20, 1957, with a view to preventing undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the business of dealing therein.
His grievance that Chartered Accountants were favoured because Mr R.N. Bansal had tried to favour members of his fraternity was companyntered by pointing out that the Chartered Accountants had special knowledge and were abreast with financial matters and mechanics of public issue of shares and were, therefore, able to perform better at the interview.
