<?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>1992 (1) TMI 285 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102241</link>
    <description>In rectification proceedings involving transfer of shares, the party asserting the transfer must prove lawful execution, payment of consideration and compliance with mandatory transfer and stamping requirements; an instrument that is not duly stamped cannot support a valid transfer. On the evidence, the alleged transfers of the petitioners&#039; shares were not proved and were invalid in law, so the petitioners continued as members. The Court also held that rectification should not be granted in respect of shares of other members who were not before the Court, because their rights could not properly be altered in their absence. The order dismissing the petition was set aside and the petitioners&#039; names were restored in the register.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:10:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 285 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102241</link>
      <description>In rectification proceedings involving transfer of shares, the party asserting the transfer must prove lawful execution, payment of consideration and compliance with mandatory transfer and stamping requirements; an instrument that is not duly stamped cannot support a valid transfer. On the evidence, the alleged transfers of the petitioners&#039; shares were not proved and were invalid in law, so the petitioners continued as members. The Court also held that rectification should not be granted in respect of shares of other members who were not before the Court, because their rights could not properly be altered in their absence. The order dismissing the petition was set aside and the petitioners&#039; names were restored in the register.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>