<?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>1957 (2) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97498</link>
    <description>A subscriber becomes a shareholder only on allotment and communication of allotment, with the register of members and share certificates evidencing that status. For exemption under the 1937 stamp-duty notification, transfers between companies limited by shares had to satisfy the beneficial ownership condition. On the stated facts, the shares were allotted, the allotment was communicated, certificates were issued, and the petitioners were entered in the register of members. The contract contained no condition precedent preventing vesting, and any remaining reciprocal obligations did not defeat ownership already conferred by allotment. The petitioners therefore satisfied the notification and were entitled to the stamp-duty exemption certificate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (2) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97498</link>
      <description>A subscriber becomes a shareholder only on allotment and communication of allotment, with the register of members and share certificates evidencing that status. For exemption under the 1937 stamp-duty notification, transfers between companies limited by shares had to satisfy the beneficial ownership condition. On the stated facts, the shares were allotted, the allotment was communicated, certificates were issued, and the petitioners were entered in the register of members. The contract contained no condition precedent preventing vesting, and any remaining reciprocal obligations did not defeat ownership already conferred by allotment. The petitioners therefore satisfied the notification and were entitled to the stamp-duty exemption certificate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>