https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213796 A procedural cut-off fixed for administrative convenience could not defeat a bona fide purchaser's claim for certification of tainted shares where the governing statute prescribed no time limit and the delay was not attributable to the claimant. The Supreme Court held that the certification mechanism under the Special Court Act had to be applied consistently with its object, so innocent investors were not deprived of legitimate dividends and accruals because of circumstances beyond their control. Rejection of the application solely for delay was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the Custodian was directed to process the certification claim and examine entitlement on merits. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213796 A procedural cut-off fixed for administrative convenience could not defeat a bona fide purchaser's claim for certification of tainted shares where the governing statute prescribed no time limit and the delay was not attributable to the claimant. The Supreme Court held that the certification mechanism under the Special Court Act had to be applied consistently with its object, so innocent investors were not deprived of legitimate dividends and accruals because of circumstances beyond their control. Rejection of the application solely for delay was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the Custodian was directed to process the certification claim and examine entitlement on merits. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213796