<?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>1981 (1) TMI 201 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100044</link>
    <description>Share transfers and allotments governed by a company&#039;s articles must comply with prescribed unanimity and procedural requirements. Transfers of certain shareholders&#039; shares were substantively valid but defectively registered because unanimous board approval was absent; a non-resident&#039;s transfer failed for lack of a transfer deed and unresolved legal impediments, while another transfer remained undisturbed. An additional share allotment was invalid because a director entitled to notice was excluded and unanimity was lacking. Removal of a permanent director under the Companies Act, 1956 required a duly convened meeting with proper notice; insufficient proof of notice rendered the removal void. Consequential measures included shareholding adjustments, a buy-out option, and independent board supervision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:38:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 201 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100044</link>
      <description>Share transfers and allotments governed by a company&#039;s articles must comply with prescribed unanimity and procedural requirements. Transfers of certain shareholders&#039; shares were substantively valid but defectively registered because unanimous board approval was absent; a non-resident&#039;s transfer failed for lack of a transfer deed and unresolved legal impediments, while another transfer remained undisturbed. An additional share allotment was invalid because a director entitled to notice was excluded and unanimity was lacking. Removal of a permanent director under the Companies Act, 1956 required a duly convened meeting with proper notice; insufficient proof of notice rendered the removal void. Consequential measures included shareholding adjustments, a buy-out option, and independent board supervision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>