https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274509 The court found the plaintiff and defendant No.3 in default for failing to raise the security cover as required. The plaintiff was deemed to have the standing to file the suit due to their direct interest in the pledged shares. Additionally, the court held that defendant No.1's sale of shares without notice was invalid, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice requirement under the Contract Act. Defendant No.1 was directed to issue notices before any future sale of pledged shares, and actions taken without notice were deemed invalid. The court's orders included directives for future actions regarding the pledged shares and emphasized the tentative nature of the findings. en-us Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:19:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274509 The court found the plaintiff and defendant No.3 in default for failing to raise the security cover as required. The plaintiff was deemed to have the standing to file the suit due to their direct interest in the pledged shares. Additionally, the court held that defendant No.1's sale of shares without notice was invalid, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice requirement under the Contract Act. Defendant No.1 was directed to issue notices before any future sale of pledged shares, and actions taken without notice were deemed invalid. The court's orders included directives for future actions regarding the pledged shares and emphasized the tentative nature of the findings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274509