<?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>2013 (4) TMI 917 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278586</link>
    <description>A composite petition combining rectification of the register of members with oppression relief was treated as maintainable where both remedies arose from the same factual matrix. A valid share transfer required compliance with the statutory transfer procedure, and the absence of original transfer deeds, proper minutes and reliable proof meant the finding of complete transfer was unsupported; the admitted transfer of 76% could be treated as waived only to that extent, leaving the remaining shareholding for fresh examination. The alleged increase in authorised share capital also depended on proof of a duly convened meeting with proper notice and minutes, and the record was found insufficient, requiring fresh adjudication. The CLB order was set aside in part and remanded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:51:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 917 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278586</link>
      <description>A composite petition combining rectification of the register of members with oppression relief was treated as maintainable where both remedies arose from the same factual matrix. A valid share transfer required compliance with the statutory transfer procedure, and the absence of original transfer deeds, proper minutes and reliable proof meant the finding of complete transfer was unsupported; the admitted transfer of 76% could be treated as waived only to that extent, leaving the remaining shareholding for fresh examination. The alleged increase in authorised share capital also depended on proof of a duly convened meeting with proper notice and minutes, and the record was found insufficient, requiring fresh adjudication. The CLB order was set aside in part and remanded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>