<?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>1952 (4) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97176</link>
    <description>A regular suit for rectification of a share register and consequential reliefs was treated as maintainable where the Companies Act remedy was only summary and the dispute lay beyond execution proceedings, so section 47 CPC did not bar the suit. In a court sale of shares, title was held to pass on payment and confirmation of sale; formal delivery or endorsement under Order XXI was not an additional condition to perfect title. The suit was held to fall within the residuary limitation period. On the facts, only the 31 shares still standing in the judgment-debtor&#039;s name passed to the auction purchaser, because the earlier transfers of the remaining shares were recognised and were not displaced for want of proof of fraud or notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:38:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (4) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97176</link>
      <description>A regular suit for rectification of a share register and consequential reliefs was treated as maintainable where the Companies Act remedy was only summary and the dispute lay beyond execution proceedings, so section 47 CPC did not bar the suit. In a court sale of shares, title was held to pass on payment and confirmation of sale; formal delivery or endorsement under Order XXI was not an additional condition to perfect title. The suit was held to fall within the residuary limitation period. On the facts, only the 31 shares still standing in the judgment-debtor&#039;s name passed to the auction purchaser, because the earlier transfers of the remaining shares were recognised and were not displaced for want of proof of fraud or notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>