<?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 (4) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97518</link>
    <description>Rectification of a company&#039;s register may be sought after a winding up petition is presented but before a winding up order is made, though relief remains discretionary. Section 38 is not limited to cases of company default or delay and extends to entries made fraudulently or without sufficient cause. However, the court cannot direct substitution of an alleged transferee&#039;s name where no duly stamped transfer deed signed by both parties was presented for registration, because statutory and article-based transfer requirements must be complied with. Mere silence, non-issue of notices, or informal conduct did not create estoppel against the company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:56:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (4) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97518</link>
      <description>Rectification of a company&#039;s register may be sought after a winding up petition is presented but before a winding up order is made, though relief remains discretionary. Section 38 is not limited to cases of company default or delay and extends to entries made fraudulently or without sufficient cause. However, the court cannot direct substitution of an alleged transferee&#039;s name where no duly stamped transfer deed signed by both parties was presented for registration, because statutory and article-based transfer requirements must be complied with. Mere silence, non-issue of notices, or informal conduct did not create estoppel against the company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>