https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213392 The Court resolved the dispute by quashing the respondent's demand for transfer charges and directing the update of records with the correct ownership name. The respondent was permitted to levy a reasonable administrative charge, not exceeding Rs. 1,000, for this purpose, to be completed within three weeks. The Court emphasized the distinction between administrative and transfer charges, ensuring the correct ownership name update without unjustified financial demands, and upholding the legal principles governing amalgamation cases. en-us Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213392 The Court resolved the dispute by quashing the respondent's demand for transfer charges and directing the update of records with the correct ownership name. The respondent was permitted to levy a reasonable administrative charge, not exceeding Rs. 1,000, for this purpose, to be completed within three weeks. The Court emphasized the distinction between administrative and transfer charges, ensuring the correct ownership name update without unjustified financial demands, and upholding the legal principles governing amalgamation cases. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213392