TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal challenges order on share register rectification & transfer, stressing compliance with statutory provisions</h1> <h3>Unitech Ltd. Versus Gridhar Gopal Sharma</h3> Unitech Ltd. Versus Gridhar Gopal Sharma - TMI Issues:1. Appeal against the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) under Section 10-F of the Companies Act.2. Rectification of the register of members by substituting names and issuing duplicate shares.3. Compliance with statutory provisions and guidelines in share transfer process.4. Allegation of wrongful transfer of shares.5. Interpretation of SEBI guidelines and instructions.6. Failure to adhere to caution notes and notice requirements.7. Delay in responding to transfer process and submission of necessary documents.8. Duty of the company to verify and act upon loss of shares complaints.9. Dispute over transfer of shares between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3.10. Lack of response and ex-parte proceedings by respondent No. 1.11. Legal timeline for filing appeals under Section 111-A (3) of the Companies Act.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the CLB's order directing rectification of the register of members by substituting names and issuing duplicate shares. The appellant was instructed to comply with the order or buy shares from the market for the respondent.2. The case involved a petition under Section 111-A (3) of the Companies Act regarding ownership of shares and the loss of share certificates, leading to a dispute over transfer and issuance of duplicate shares.3. The judgment emphasized compliance with statutory provisions and guidelines in the share transfer process, highlighting the importance of following SEBI guidelines and instructions.4. Allegations of wrongful transfer of shares were raised, with the CLB finding the appellant at fault for not following the prescribed procedures.5. The interpretation of SEBI guidelines and instructions played a crucial role in determining the correctness of the share transfer process and the actions of the company.6. The failure to adhere to caution notes and notice requirements was noted, indicating a lack of proper verification and communication in the share transfer process.7. Delays in responding to the transfer process and submitting necessary documents were highlighted, impacting the outcome of the case.8. The duty of the company to verify and act upon complaints of lost shares was discussed, emphasizing the need for proper procedures in such situations.9. Disputes over the transfer of shares between the involved parties, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3, added complexity to the case.10. The lack of response and ex-parte proceedings by respondent No. 1 influenced the decision-making process and the final judgment.11. The legal timeline for filing appeals under Section 111-A (3) of the Companies Act was considered, underscoring the importance of timely actions in such legal matters.
TaxTMI 