<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1937 (4) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96745</link>
    <description>Shares already standing in a member&#039;s name cannot be divested by a mere purported allotment or an incomplete transfer form. Where the articles require an executed instrument of transfer by both transferor and transferee, that formal requirement must be satisfied before title passes. On the facts, the material produced showed only an attempted allotment under the Companies Act, not a completed transfer, so the objector remained the registered holder and continued to be a contributory for winding-up purposes. The Official Liquidator&#039;s appeal succeeded, the objector&#039;s appeal failed, and the District Judge&#039;s order was restored with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 1937 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:04:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1937 (4) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96745</link>
      <description>Shares already standing in a member&#039;s name cannot be divested by a mere purported allotment or an incomplete transfer form. Where the articles require an executed instrument of transfer by both transferor and transferee, that formal requirement must be satisfied before title passes. On the facts, the material produced showed only an attempted allotment under the Companies Act, not a completed transfer, so the objector remained the registered holder and continued to be a contributory for winding-up purposes. The Official Liquidator&#039;s appeal succeeded, the objector&#039;s appeal failed, and the District Judge&#039;s order was restored with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 1937 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>