<?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>1963 (5) TMI 67 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194925</link>
    <description>In rectification of the register of members, the Court may decline summary adjudication where a serious dispute of title requires regular civil trial, and the applicant ordinarily bears the burden of showing that the entry or omission was without sufficient cause. The text also states that Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as directory, not mandatory, so non-compliance did not automatically make the share transfer or register alteration illegal or void. A transfer made during attachment was not wholly void, but only ineffective against claims enforceable under the attachment; receivership likewise did not itself divest ownership.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:37:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (5) TMI 67 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194925</link>
      <description>In rectification of the register of members, the Court may decline summary adjudication where a serious dispute of title requires regular civil trial, and the applicant ordinarily bears the burden of showing that the entry or omission was without sufficient cause. The text also states that Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as directory, not mandatory, so non-compliance did not automatically make the share transfer or register alteration illegal or void. A transfer made during attachment was not wholly void, but only ineffective against claims enforceable under the attachment; receivership likewise did not itself divest ownership.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>