SATISH NAYAK Vs. COCHIN STOCK EXCHANGE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these matters raise a common question viz. whether the Cochin Stock Exchange Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act is amenable to writ jurisdiction?

(2.) The facts of each case can be briefly stated as follows

(3.) W.A. No. 925/1994 : The appellant and the 4th respondent are members of Cochin Stock Exchange. They had dealings in the purchase and sales of shares during the period 1988 to 1990. Based on the claim of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent viz. the Cochin Stock Exchange issued a notice informing him that an arbitration complaint had been received against him. The appellant raised a preliminary objection to the claim stating that the claim was time barred under Cl. 303 of the Bye-laws of the 1st respondent. The appellant later received information to the effect that the 1st respondent Management had condoned the delay in filling the arbitration complaint. Before the commencement of the arbitration proceedings the appellant approached this Court seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices and the complaints contained in Exts. P1, P2, P4 and P5. The learned Judge dismissed the O.P. holding that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the claim is purely based on contractual obligation, besides holding that the petitioner has got alternative effective remedies. The appeal is filed against this order.