https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335663 Nomination under Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 and the depository bye-laws was held to operate as a mechanism for transmission and receipt of securities vis-a -vis the company or depository, but not to confer beneficial ownership or absolute title against heirs or a valid will. The Court applied the settled position that such nomination provisions do not create a separate line of succession or displace testamentary or intestate devolution. It also held that probate jurisdiction is limited to proof and validity of the will, so the effect of nomination could not be decided in the probate proceeding, though it could be examined in a civil suit where succession rights are directly in issue. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 18:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335663 Nomination under Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 and the depository bye-laws was held to operate as a mechanism for transmission and receipt of securities vis-a -vis the company or depository, but not to confer beneficial ownership or absolute title against heirs or a valid will. The Court applied the settled position that such nomination provisions do not create a separate line of succession or displace testamentary or intestate devolution. It also held that probate jurisdiction is limited to proof and validity of the will, so the effect of nomination could not be decided in the probate proceeding, though it could be examined in a civil suit where succession rights are directly in issue. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335663