<?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>2017 (6) TMI 355 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344084</link>
    <description>A petition for transmission of shares and rectification of the register was treated as falling under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, and no specific limitation period applied to transmission claims; the Tribunal applied the Limitation Act through Section 433 and held the petition timely because it was filed within three years of the company&#039;s refusal. The petitioners, having produced a succession certificate, were entitled to transmission of the deceased member&#039;s shares, and the company had no valid ground to refuse transfer of the first batch. For the 11 disputed shares, transmission was made conditional on notice to the competing claimant and absence of objection within the stipulated time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 355 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344084</link>
      <description>A petition for transmission of shares and rectification of the register was treated as falling under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, and no specific limitation period applied to transmission claims; the Tribunal applied the Limitation Act through Section 433 and held the petition timely because it was filed within three years of the company&#039;s refusal. The petitioners, having produced a succession certificate, were entitled to transmission of the deceased member&#039;s shares, and the company had no valid ground to refuse transfer of the first batch. For the 11 disputed shares, transmission was made conditional on notice to the competing claimant and absence of objection within the stipulated time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>