https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103593 Refusal to register a share transfer was held unsustainable where the board lacked competence to decline transfer in the stated circumstances, and rectification of the register was warranted. The remedies under sections 111 and 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 were treated as independent and alternative, so the availability of an appeal did not bar rectification proceedings. In the absence of a specific limitation period under section 155, article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied; petitions filed within three years were within time, and objections based on laches or limitation failed. The board resolution was set aside and the register was directed to be rectified. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:25:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103593 Refusal to register a share transfer was held unsustainable where the board lacked competence to decline transfer in the stated circumstances, and rectification of the register was warranted. The remedies under sections 111 and 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 were treated as independent and alternative, so the availability of an appeal did not bar rectification proceedings. In the absence of a specific limitation period under section 155, article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied; petitions filed within three years were within time, and objections based on laches or limitation failed. The board resolution was set aside and the register was directed to be rectified. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103593