<?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>2004 (7) TMI 676 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197669</link>
    <description>A forward sale of marketable shares was treated as prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 because the decisive test was marketability, not whether the shares were listed on a stock exchange. The transaction was therefore ineffective. Separately, property belonging to a notified party stood statutorily attached on notification under the Special Court Act, and the amount in question remained the notified party&#039;s property because the alleged forward sale could not be given effect to. The surrounding circumstances were also viewed as consistent with an arrangement intended to defeat the statutory scheme, so the amount was required to be deposited with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:20:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 676 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197669</link>
      <description>A forward sale of marketable shares was treated as prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 because the decisive test was marketability, not whether the shares were listed on a stock exchange. The transaction was therefore ineffective. Separately, property belonging to a notified party stood statutorily attached on notification under the Special Court Act, and the amount in question remained the notified party&#039;s property because the alleged forward sale could not be given effect to. The surrounding circumstances were also viewed as consistent with an arrangement intended to defeat the statutory scheme, so the amount was required to be deposited with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>