https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97267 An order was treated as a judgment under clause 10 of the Letters Patent because it conclusively determined the heirs' right to a duplicate share certificate and affected maintainability of the transfer application. In proceedings under section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, the company could insist on letters of administration under its articles before issuing a duplicate certificate and rectifying the register, and that bona fide insistence was not action without sufficient cause. The transfer also could not be compelled for registration because the instrument was not duly stamped and the scrip had not been delivered, so no automatic rectification followed from delay. The appeal succeeded and the rectification request failed with costs. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:25:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97267 An order was treated as a judgment under clause 10 of the Letters Patent because it conclusively determined the heirs' right to a duplicate share certificate and affected maintainability of the transfer application. In proceedings under section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, the company could insist on letters of administration under its articles before issuing a duplicate certificate and rectifying the register, and that bona fide insistence was not action without sufficient cause. The transfer also could not be compelled for registration because the instrument was not duly stamped and the scrip had not been delivered, so no automatic rectification followed from delay. The appeal succeeded and the rectification request failed with costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Nov 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97267