https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102625 Delay in issuing a fresh dividend warrant did not by itself justify interest where the original warrant was not received and the issuer was entitled to seek an indemnity bond before reissuing it, so the interest claim failed. Sending a dividend warrant above the prescribed limit by ordinary post, however, amounted to negligence because it should have been sent by registered cover, and the resulting loss justified damages. The appeal therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of compensation for negligent dispatch, with damages of Rs. 500 awarded, while the claim for interest was rejected. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102625 Delay in issuing a fresh dividend warrant did not by itself justify interest where the original warrant was not received and the issuer was entitled to seek an indemnity bond before reissuing it, so the interest claim failed. Sending a dividend warrant above the prescribed limit by ordinary post, however, amounted to negligence because it should have been sent by registered cover, and the resulting loss justified damages. The appeal therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of compensation for negligent dispatch, with damages of Rs. 500 awarded, while the claim for interest was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102625