https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102692 The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Company Law Board's order. The judgment clarified the distinction between free transferability and refusal to split shares, emphasizing compliance with the Company's Articles of Association. It highlighted that the refusal was based on the prohibition of splitting shares into less than a marketable lot, not on transferring shares to specified names. The Court rejected the application of section 22A of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, as there was no hindrance to free transferability. The importance of marketable lot concept and listing agreement conditions in share transactions was underscored, granting the respondent the opportunity to request transfer to specified names. en-us Sun, 26 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:21:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102692 The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Company Law Board's order. The judgment clarified the distinction between free transferability and refusal to split shares, emphasizing compliance with the Company's Articles of Association. It highlighted that the refusal was based on the prohibition of splitting shares into less than a marketable lot, not on transferring shares to specified names. The Court rejected the application of section 22A of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, as there was no hindrance to free transferability. The importance of marketable lot concept and listing agreement conditions in share transactions was underscored, granting the respondent the opportunity to request transfer to specified names. Case-Laws Companies Law Sun, 26 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102692