TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the issues were wrongly framed by placing the burden of proof on the defendants in a suit challenging refusal to recognise a transfer of shares. (ii) Whether revisional interference was justified on the facts of the case.
Issue (i): Whether the issues were wrongly framed by placing the burden of proof on the defendants in a suit challenging refusal to recognise a transfer of shares.
Analysis: The burden of proving that the company's refusal to register the transfer was invalid lay on the plaintiff. The issue as framed shifted that burden to the defendants, which was inconsistent with the governing principle applicable to such disputes.
Conclusion: The issues were wrongly framed and the objection taken by the petitioner succeeded.
Issue (ii): Whether revisional interference was justified on the facts of the case.
Analysis: Revisional power is ordinarily exercised sparingly, but interference was warranted where the burden of proof had been placed incorrectly and the matter involved an important question affecting companies. The error amounted to material irregularity.
Conclusion: Revisional interference was justified.
Final Conclusion: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the costs were directed to abide the result of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the burden of proof in a share-transfer dispute is wrongly placed by the trial court, the resulting framing error constitutes material irregularity justifying revisional correction.
TaxTMI 
