REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Madhu Sudan Agarwal Appellant

V/S

M.P. Stock Exchange Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MADHUBHAI AMATHALAL GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SINGH THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THE L 1 C LIMITED THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI:THE ASSOCIATION OF CLASS II OFFICERS 0 N G C:SHYAM LAL SHARMA:THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAJA RAM [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BROJO NATH GANGULY / TARUN KANTI SENGUPTA [REFERRED TO]
ANDI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTAJEE VANDAS SWAMI SUVARNA JAYANTI MAHOTSAV SMARAK TRUST VS. V R RUDANI [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR AUTO STORES VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING [REFERRED TO]
UNNI KRISHNAN J P VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K KRISHNAMACHARYULU VS. VENKATESWARA HINDU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR MAHESHWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
R JAGADEESH KUMAR VS. P SRINIVASAN [REFERRED TO]
SATISH NAYAK VS. COCHIN STOCK EXCHANGE LTD [REFERRED TO]
SEJAL RIKEEN DALAL VS. STOCK EXCHANGE BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
PESI SHROFF VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS ORDER shall also goven disposal of M.P. No. 1454/93 (Purushottam (deceased) through Lrs V. Union of India and ors.) M.P. No. 1928/93 (Ashok Kumar V. M.P. Stock Exchange and ors.), and M.P. No. 1410/95 (Rajendra Rathore and another V M.P. Stock Exchange and Ors.), as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions.

(2.) IN all the aforesaid petitions, the Respondent M.P. Stock Exchange (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Stock Exchange') has raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the petition, on the ground, that M.P. Stock Exchange is not a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and consequently it would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution. Since the question has been posed in the aforesaid petitions and in other petitions which have not been listed, it was thought fit and counsel appearing for both sides, prayed that the question with regard to maintainability of the petition, in the light of the aforesaid objection, be decided first so that the petitioners are able to know their fate.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , it was thought fit to decide the said question as preliminary issue. The Court has, accordingly, framed the following question which requires consideration;

Click here to view full judgment.

MADHU SUDAN AGARWAL Vs. M.P. STOCK EXCHANGE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address