<?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>1943 (3) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96890</link>
    <description>A succession certificate and the will were treated as sufficient to establish the legal representative&#039;s authority to represent the deceased shareholder&#039;s estate, so the bank could not insist on probate or letters of administration before transferring the shares. The Court also held that transmission on death is distinct from transfer by act of parties, and any lien, if valid, continued with the shares; an express acknowledgment of that lien was therefore unnecessary. Mere residence in enemy-occupied territory did not by itself make the plaintiff an alien enemy, and no statutory disability was proved. As special loss and market-based damages were not established, only nominal damages were awarded, and the register was directed to be rectified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1943 (3) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96890</link>
      <description>A succession certificate and the will were treated as sufficient to establish the legal representative&#039;s authority to represent the deceased shareholder&#039;s estate, so the bank could not insist on probate or letters of administration before transferring the shares. The Court also held that transmission on death is distinct from transfer by act of parties, and any lien, if valid, continued with the shares; an express acknowledgment of that lien was therefore unnecessary. Mere residence in enemy-occupied territory did not by itself make the plaintiff an alien enemy, and no statutory disability was proved. As special loss and market-based damages were not established, only nominal damages were awarded, and the register was directed to be rectified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>