https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278411 The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 did not prohibit the appellant from holding the respondent bank's shares, because the holding was only 50 shares and remained within the statutory ceiling; a voting restriction did not amount to a bar on ownership. The alleged prior directions were not supported by documentary material and could not create a continuing legal prohibition. The earlier refusal of a much larger block of shares in 1982, based on apprehended control and the size of that holding, could not be mechanically applied to the fresh 1987 transfer of 50 shares. The board was required to exercise its discretion bona fide on the facts then prevailing, and the refusal to register the transfer was therefore unjustified. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:55:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278411 The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 did not prohibit the appellant from holding the respondent bank's shares, because the holding was only 50 shares and remained within the statutory ceiling; a voting restriction did not amount to a bar on ownership. The alleged prior directions were not supported by documentary material and could not create a continuing legal prohibition. The earlier refusal of a much larger block of shares in 1982, based on apprehended control and the size of that holding, could not be mechanically applied to the fresh 1987 transfer of 50 shares. The board was required to exercise its discretion bona fide on the facts then prevailing, and the refusal to register the transfer was therefore unjustified. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 20 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278411