<?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>2018 (10) TMI 712 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368746</link>
    <description>An incomplete and suspicious share transfer form, marked by missing signatures, absent witness details, stamp duty discrepancies and non-traceable delivery of the share certificate, was treated as lacking the formal validity needed to displace the original shareholder&#039;s rights. The material also reflected that the company remained responsible for the conduct of its registrar and transfer agent, and that pending enquiry or disputed facts did not by themselves justify denial of relief where the record already showed a defective transfer process. On that basis, restoration of the member&#039;s name, issue of duplicate share certificates on indemnity, and consequential bonus shares and dividends were considered appropriate remedies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:06:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 712 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368746</link>
      <description>An incomplete and suspicious share transfer form, marked by missing signatures, absent witness details, stamp duty discrepancies and non-traceable delivery of the share certificate, was treated as lacking the formal validity needed to displace the original shareholder&#039;s rights. The material also reflected that the company remained responsible for the conduct of its registrar and transfer agent, and that pending enquiry or disputed facts did not by themselves justify denial of relief where the record already showed a defective transfer process. On that basis, restoration of the member&#039;s name, issue of duplicate share certificates on indemnity, and consequential bonus shares and dividends were considered appropriate remedies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>