<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1061 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329352</link>
    <description>A joint shareholder acting as trustee could maintain a rectification petition in her own right without joining co-trustees, because the company need not recognise a private trust and the challenge was to an unlawful transfer. The petition was also not barred by limitation, as no specific limitation period governed rectification before the CLB, though delay and laches could still matter on facts. Suppression and non est factum were not established merely from signatures or deemed knowledge. The transfers were invalid because the record showed no proper transfer instrument or compliant board approval. The rectification petitions succeeded and the dismissal orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:44:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1061 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329352</link>
      <description>A joint shareholder acting as trustee could maintain a rectification petition in her own right without joining co-trustees, because the company need not recognise a private trust and the challenge was to an unlawful transfer. The petition was also not barred by limitation, as no specific limitation period governed rectification before the CLB, though delay and laches could still matter on facts. Suppression and non est factum were not established merely from signatures or deemed knowledge. The transfers were invalid because the record showed no proper transfer instrument or compliant board approval. The rectification petitions succeeded and the dismissal orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>