<?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>1963 (5) TMI 10 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97246</link>
    <description>A constructive trustee of partly paid shares cannot be compelled to buy further shares in his own name under a pre-emptive allotment offer where that would expose him to fresh personal liability and future calls; the beneficiary is entitled only to the benefit attached to the original holding, not to impose new burdens on the trustee. A requisition must clearly identify the true beneficiaries and provide an effective indemnity; an uncertain or incomplete demand is insufficient in law. The receiver, whose name was not on the register, could not force allotment or registration of the new shares in his name, and damages were unavailable because no valid demand or enforceable entitlement was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (5) TMI 10 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97246</link>
      <description>A constructive trustee of partly paid shares cannot be compelled to buy further shares in his own name under a pre-emptive allotment offer where that would expose him to fresh personal liability and future calls; the beneficiary is entitled only to the benefit attached to the original holding, not to impose new burdens on the trustee. A requisition must clearly identify the true beneficiaries and provide an effective indemnity; an uncertain or incomplete demand is insufficient in law. The receiver, whose name was not on the register, could not force allotment or registration of the new shares in his name, and damages were unavailable because no valid demand or enforceable entitlement was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>