https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379793 The NCLT rejected the appeal, ordering the Appellants to pay costs to Respondent No.2. The tribunal found inconsistencies in the Appellants' claims regarding the share transfer, doubted the validity of the gift deed, and noted the lack of compliance with required procedures under the Companies Act. It upheld its jurisdiction to decide on the title of shares, deemed the transfer fraudulent, and ordered the rectification of the register to reinstate OP1 as the shareholder of the disputed shares. The appellate tribunal affirmed the NCLT's decision. en-us Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379793 The NCLT rejected the appeal, ordering the Appellants to pay costs to Respondent No.2. The tribunal found inconsistencies in the Appellants' claims regarding the share transfer, doubted the validity of the gift deed, and noted the lack of compliance with required procedures under the Companies Act. It upheld its jurisdiction to decide on the title of shares, deemed the transfer fraudulent, and ordered the rectification of the register to reinstate OP1 as the shareholder of the disputed shares. The appellate tribunal affirmed the NCLT's decision. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379793