https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103032 The court ruled in favor of defendant No. 10, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove the transfer deeds were signed by authorized signatories. The court emphasized the importance of notifying signatory details and found defendant No. 10's verification process reasonable. Allegations of malicious actions were dismissed due to lack of evidence, with the court noting a buyback arrangement between parties. Ad interim relief was denied, directing compliance with Stock Exchange regulations. The court found no legal faults in defendant No. 10's decisions and allowed parties to proceed based on the court's order, highlighting potential negligence by stock brokers. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:29:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103032 The court ruled in favor of defendant No. 10, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove the transfer deeds were signed by authorized signatories. The court emphasized the importance of notifying signatory details and found defendant No. 10's verification process reasonable. Allegations of malicious actions were dismissed due to lack of evidence, with the court noting a buyback arrangement between parties. Ad interim relief was denied, directing compliance with Stock Exchange regulations. The court found no legal faults in defendant No. 10's decisions and allowed parties to proceed based on the court's order, highlighting potential negligence by stock brokers. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103032