TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: Whether the board of directors was justified in withholding consent to register the transmission of the deceased member's shares in favour of the widow on the strength of the succession certificate, and whether rectification of the register under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 was warranted.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the distinction between transfer and transmission, and on the scope of the company's articles and section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956. The articles required consent of the directors for registration of transmission, but that discretion had to be exercised bona fide, reasonably, and in the interests of the company, and not on a wrong principle or for an oblique purpose. The Court found that the widow's request, if granted in the form sought, would have resulted in all 900 shares being registered in her name alone, although the deceased's heirs included other Class I heirs. On the materials before the Court, that course would have been inconsistent with the articles and potentially prejudicial to the interests of the other heirs. The board's refusal was therefore not shown to be arbitrary, capricious, corrupt, or mala fide.
Conclusion: The refusal to order rectification was upheld, and the petition was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
