https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101676 The court upheld that the petitioners were not competent to challenge the validity of Regulation 24. However, it found the board's refusal to register share transfers as capricious due to an unreasonable delay, deeming the refusal invalid. The court ordered the company to register the transfers, rectify the share register, and notify the Registrar accordingly. Each party was to bear its own costs. en-us Fri, 17 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:15:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101676 The court upheld that the petitioners were not competent to challenge the validity of Regulation 24. However, it found the board's refusal to register share transfers as capricious due to an unreasonable delay, deeming the refusal invalid. The court ordered the company to register the transfers, rectify the share register, and notify the Registrar accordingly. Each party was to bear its own costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101676