Bombay High Court
Vinay Babna
Versus
Stock of Exchange of Mumbai
Decided On:

Headnote:Mumbai Stock Exchange Rules Bye-laws and Regulations, 1957

       Rules 5, 7, 9, 10, 16,43 and 53 - See Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

       Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)Transfer of Property Act, 1988, Section 12-Mumbai Stock Exchange Rules Bye-laws and Regulations, 1957, Rules 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 43 and 53-Interpretation of statutes-Membership of Shareholder of Mumbai Stock Exchange-Not amounted to his personal property but is merely personal privilege-Rule -43 provides for lieu on security-Rules not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution.-In the present case, Court does not see that impugned rules are arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as contended by the petitioner. The Stock Exchange has framed its Rules and Regulations to govern and administer its own business and in the manner in which its interest will be served best.

       The Statement of Objects of the Rules aims at high standard in the commercial dealings which are done through the Stock Exchange. Accordingly to the impugned Rules 16 and 43 are also in consonance with the said objects of the Stock Exchange.

       The Stock Exchange has rightly pointed out that other rules framed by the Stock Exchange clearly provide that membership of the Stock Exchange is only a personal privilege and rights of membership are inalienable. The rules also specifically provide that on the date of default of a member, his right of nomination shall cease and vest in the Stock Exchange. The rules also provide for the proced ure to deal with Membership Card.

       Section 12-See Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

       Article 226-Mumbai Stock Exchange, Rules Bye Laws and Regulation, 1957, Rules 16 and 43-Writ petition-Jurisdiction of High Court -High Court has no jurisdiction to direct Stock Exchange to amend, alter or delete Rules 16 and 43- Though can declare any rule as unconstitutional.- The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the Stock Exchange to amend/alter/ delete the impugned Rules 16 and 43 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

       It is the exclusive function of the Stock Exchange to frame its own Rules and Bye-laws for its members and their rights or privileges in accordance with the requirements. It is the well- settled position in law that Courts have no jurisdiction to direct any authority to frame rules or amend or alter rules or delete any of such rules though courts can declare any rule as unconstitutional being violative of the Constitution of India.

       For Citation : 1999 (1) All MR 107