https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98372 A company could not unilaterally delete members' names from its register and substitute another name where the allotments were contested, especially because the entries concerned minors and required recourse to court. The rectification was therefore held to be without sufficient cause. On limitation, the tribunal declined to treat correspondence as notice to the petitioners, held that time ran from their attainment of majority, and applied Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 by analogy. On that basis, the petitions were within time and rectification relief was granted. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:12:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98372 A company could not unilaterally delete members' names from its register and substitute another name where the allotments were contested, especially because the entries concerned minors and required recourse to court. The rectification was therefore held to be without sufficient cause. On limitation, the tribunal declined to treat correspondence as notice to the petitioners, held that time ran from their attainment of majority, and applied Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 by analogy. On that basis, the petitions were within time and rectification relief was granted. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 02 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98372