<?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>1999 (12) TMI 771 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105060</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction for a complaint alleging failure to deliver share certificates lies where the company had to perform the statutory duty of posting them, not where the complainant resides. Reading the share-certificate delivery provisions with the service-by-post rule, compliance is effected when the certificates are properly addressed, prepaid and posted to the registered address. The offence, if any, arises from non-delivery within the prescribed time at the place of the company&#039;s registered office. The contrary view that jurisdiction could be founded on the complainant&#039;s place of residence was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 771 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105060</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction for a complaint alleging failure to deliver share certificates lies where the company had to perform the statutory duty of posting them, not where the complainant resides. Reading the share-certificate delivery provisions with the service-by-post rule, compliance is effected when the certificates are properly addressed, prepaid and posted to the registered address. The offence, if any, arises from non-delivery within the prescribed time at the place of the company&#039;s registered office. The contrary view that jurisdiction could be founded on the complainant&#039;s place of residence was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>