<?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>1977 (8) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99520</link>
    <description>Directors under limited transfer-restriction articles may refuse share registration only on grounds authorised by the articles, such as a lien or a personal objection to the transferee. A refusal based on alleged cornering of shares, banking policy concerns, or section 12(2) of the Banking Regulation Act was outside that discretion, because section 12(2) restricts voting rights and does not prohibit transfer. The court&#039;s power to rectify the register under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not excluded by the alternative appeal remedy under section 111(1), and the transferee could proceed under either route. The refusal was therefore ultra vires and the register was liable to be rectified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:27:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (8) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99520</link>
      <description>Directors under limited transfer-restriction articles may refuse share registration only on grounds authorised by the articles, such as a lien or a personal objection to the transferee. A refusal based on alleged cornering of shares, banking policy concerns, or section 12(2) of the Banking Regulation Act was outside that discretion, because section 12(2) restricts voting rights and does not prohibit transfer. The court&#039;s power to rectify the register under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not excluded by the alternative appeal remedy under section 111(1), and the transferee could proceed under either route. The refusal was therefore ultra vires and the register was liable to be rectified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>