https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96674 In a suit challenging refusal to recognise a transfer of shares, the burden of proving the company's refusal was invalid lay on the plaintiff; framing the issue so that burden shifted to the defendants was contrary to the governing principle. That misdirection in issue framing was treated as a material irregularity. Revisional interference was therefore justified on the facts, despite the generally sparing use of revisional power, because the error affected an important company-law question. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, with costs to abide the result of the suit. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:33:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96674 In a suit challenging refusal to recognise a transfer of shares, the burden of proving the company's refusal was invalid lay on the plaintiff; framing the issue so that burden shifted to the defendants was contrary to the governing principle. That misdirection in issue framing was treated as a material irregularity. Revisional interference was therefore justified on the facts, despite the generally sparing use of revisional power, because the error affected an important company-law question. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, with costs to abide the result of the suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 Apr 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96674