https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198400 An applicant seeking recognition of a post-winding-up share transfer was denied relief because the claim was brought after more than eighteen years without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the court treated the silence as unexplained laches. Relief was also refused under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 because the alleged transfer was seriously disputed on the pleadings and affidavits, including uncertainty over the meeting, minutes, transfer documents, and approval. In a contested factual situation, the court held that validation could not be granted on an unproven foundation. The application therefore failed for staleness, factual dispute, and lack of a reliable basis for relief. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:06:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198400 An applicant seeking recognition of a post-winding-up share transfer was denied relief because the claim was brought after more than eighteen years without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the court treated the silence as unexplained laches. Relief was also refused under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 because the alleged transfer was seriously disputed on the pleadings and affidavits, including uncertainty over the meeting, minutes, transfer documents, and approval. In a contested factual situation, the court held that validation could not be granted on an unproven foundation. The application therefore failed for staleness, factual dispute, and lack of a reliable basis for relief. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198400