https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236213 A shareholder's standing to seek revival under company-compromise provisions was held not to depend on a valid directorship; membership and shareholding were sufficient, so doubt over the applicant's appointment did not defeat locus. The Court also treated the share acquisition as a genuine transfer, finding no evidence of sham transaction, fraud, benami holding, or prejudice to workmen or creditors. It further held that section 22 of SICA did not apply because the BIFR proceedings had abated and no live proceeding was pending. Alleged nondisclosure was found insufficient to justify recall, so the request to undo the earlier order was rejected. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:33:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236213 A shareholder's standing to seek revival under company-compromise provisions was held not to depend on a valid directorship; membership and shareholding were sufficient, so doubt over the applicant's appointment did not defeat locus. The Court also treated the share acquisition as a genuine transfer, finding no evidence of sham transaction, fraud, benami holding, or prejudice to workmen or creditors. It further held that section 22 of SICA did not apply because the BIFR proceedings had abated and no live proceeding was pending. Alleged nondisclosure was found insufficient to justify recall, so the request to undo the earlier order was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236213