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>Importance of Written Instrument for Valid Share Transfer | Shareholder Consent Essential</h1> <h3>Mumtaz Bank Ltd. Versus Syed Masud Ali Chisti</h3> Mumtaz Bank Ltd. Versus Syed Masud Ali Chisti - [1937] 7 COMP. CAS. 230 (LAH.) Issues:1. Validity of the transfer of shares from one party to another.2. Interpretation of the company's Articles of Association regarding share transfers.3. Determination of whether a transfer or an allotment took place in the case.4. Examination of evidence regarding the alleged transfer of shares.5. Consideration of the legal significance of transfer forms and share certificates.6. Accountability for costs in the appeals process.Analysis:The judgment involves appeals under the Letters Patent from the decision of a single Judge, who heard an appeal from the District Judge, Lahore, regarding the winding up of a company, where the name of an individual was placed on the list of contributories. The dispute centered around the transfer of one hundred shares to two individuals without proper documentation or registration with the company. The learned District Judge highlighted the absence of transfer instruments and the lack of applications for share registration by the alleged transferees (Mohammad Abdulla and Taj Din). The District Judge deemed the surrender of shares illegal and found no valid transfer had occurred.The appellate Judge distinguished between the cases of the two sets of shares and concluded that only fifty shares had been effectively transferred, while the other fifty remained with the original shareholder. The appellate Judge's decision was based on a misunderstanding between a transfer and an allotment, emphasizing the necessity of a written instrument for a valid transfer under the company's Articles of Association. The judgment clarified the difference between a transfer and an allotment, noting that shares could not be allotted to another without the shareholder's consent.The Court emphasized the importance of a proper instrument of transfer for share transactions and found that the shares in question had not been effectively transferred to the alleged transferee. The evidence presented by the objector was deemed false, and discrepancies in the documentation raised doubts about the legitimacy of the transfer. The Court scrutinized the entries on the share certificate and transfer forms, concluding that the intended transfer was never executed as claimed by the objector.Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal of the Official Liquidator, dismissed the appeal of the objector, and upheld the judgment of the District Judge. The objector was ordered to bear the costs incurred by the Official Liquidator in both the appeal to the single Judge and the subsequent appeals under the Letters Patent.
TaxTMI 