https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260503 A share transfer under the Companies Act, 1956 is not valid without compliance with Section 108(1), and the Board treated deprivation of shareholder rights on an unproved transfer as continuing oppression. The petitioner was found to have locus standi because the company's annual returns showed holding of 1,950 shares and no valid transfer deed was produced. The petition was not barred by limitation, delay or laches because the alleged oppression was continuing. Allegations of suppression of material facts and want of bona fides were rejected. The Board declined to accept the alleged transfer as lawful, ordered restoration of the petitioner's 1,950 shares, and granted consequential shareholder protection including service of statutory notices. en-us Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2015 06:47:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260503 A share transfer under the Companies Act, 1956 is not valid without compliance with Section 108(1), and the Board treated deprivation of shareholder rights on an unproved transfer as continuing oppression. The petitioner was found to have locus standi because the company's annual returns showed holding of 1,950 shares and no valid transfer deed was produced. The petition was not barred by limitation, delay or laches because the alleged oppression was continuing. Allegations of suppression of material facts and want of bona fides were rejected. The Board declined to accept the alleged transfer as lawful, ordered restoration of the petitioner's 1,950 shares, and granted consequential shareholder protection including service of statutory notices. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260503