https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200264 The court found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the refusal to register the transfer of shares was prejudicial to the company's interest. The validity of the pledge and transfer of shares was upheld, with the court determining that the appellant had the authority to complete the transfer. Compliance with Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act was deemed satisfied. The court clarified that the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, did not apply in this case. The authority of the company's chairman to issue consent for share transfer was upheld. The company was directed to register the transfer of shares within ten days, and the appeals were allowed without costs. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:52:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200264 The court found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the refusal to register the transfer of shares was prejudicial to the company's interest. The validity of the pledge and transfer of shares was upheld, with the court determining that the appellant had the authority to complete the transfer. Compliance with Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act was deemed satisfied. The court clarified that the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, did not apply in this case. The authority of the company's chairman to issue consent for share transfer was upheld. The company was directed to register the transfer of shares within ten days, and the appeals were allowed without costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200264