Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refusal to transfer shares, in the face of a dispute regarding title and heirship, constituted a restrictive trade practice or unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, warranting review of the earlier order.
Analysis: The record showed that the shares stood in the name of the deceased shareholder, that rival claims over heirship and title were pending, and that a partition dispute was also sub judice. In such circumstances, the company's refusal to record transfer could not be treated as inherently restrictive or unfair. The statutory framework under section 22A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 permitted refusal in specified circumstances, and the aggrieved party had a separate remedy under section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956. No material was shown to establish any prohibited trade practice by the company so as to attract the MRTP Act.
Conclusion: The refusal to transfer the shares did not amount to a restrictive or unfair trade practice under the MRTP Act, and the review application was not maintainable on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: A refusal to transfer shares arising from a genuine dispute over title or heirship, where an alternative statutory remedy exists under company law, does not by itself constitute a restrictive or unfair trade practice under the MRTP Act.