https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275885 Proceedings before the Company Law Board were treated as not governed by the Limitation Act, so delay beyond two months from the refusal letter did not bar maintainability under Section 111(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. On transmission, the company's article concerned sale and transfer, not transmission on death, and Regulation 25 of Table A governed jointly held shares by recognising the survivor or survivors as entitled to them. As a result, the deceased joint holder's legal heirs had no entitlement to transmission in their favour, and the challenge to the refusal failed on the survivorship rule. en-us Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:09:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275885 Proceedings before the Company Law Board were treated as not governed by the Limitation Act, so delay beyond two months from the refusal letter did not bar maintainability under Section 111(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. On transmission, the company's article concerned sale and transfer, not transmission on death, and Regulation 25 of Table A governed jointly held shares by recognising the survivor or survivors as entitled to them. As a result, the deceased joint holder's legal heirs had no entitlement to transmission in their favour, and the challenge to the refusal failed on the survivorship rule. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275885