https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285592 The Special Court Amendment Act, 1994 was treated as limited to proceedings pending before civil courts and did not oust the Company Law Board's statutory jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956. On the securities issue, delivery of the IRFC bonds was found to be neither a valid pledge nor a valid sale, because the broker lacked authority to create a pledge in the ordinary course of business and no independent sale contract was shown. As the delivery did not arise from an authorised sale or pledge, no good title passed to the petitioner. The documentary record instead supported Standard Chartered Bank as the true owner, so its name was required to be entered in the register of bondholders. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:28:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285592 The Special Court Amendment Act, 1994 was treated as limited to proceedings pending before civil courts and did not oust the Company Law Board's statutory jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956. On the securities issue, delivery of the IRFC bonds was found to be neither a valid pledge nor a valid sale, because the broker lacked authority to create a pledge in the ordinary course of business and no independent sale contract was shown. As the delivery did not arise from an authorised sale or pledge, no good title passed to the petitioner. The documentary record instead supported Standard Chartered Bank as the true owner, so its name was required to be entered in the register of bondholders. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 25 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285592