https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292542 Shares registered in a Mahant's name were not treated as Mutt property because the evidence did not show that the application or purchase money came from Mutt funds, and the succession deed did not include the shares as part of the institution's assets. The company was also not estopped from refusing registration in the plaintiff's favour, as there was no representation intended to induce detrimental reliance, and the articles entitled it to insist on proper transfer documents or, failing that, satisfactory evidence and an indemnity bond. In the absence of a transfer by the registered holder and compliance with those formalities, the plaintiff could not compel transfer. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 1902 00:00:00 +0521 Wed, 30 Dec 2020 12:04:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292542 Shares registered in a Mahant's name were not treated as Mutt property because the evidence did not show that the application or purchase money came from Mutt funds, and the succession deed did not include the shares as part of the institution's assets. The company was also not estopped from refusing registration in the plaintiff's favour, as there was no representation intended to induce detrimental reliance, and the articles entitled it to insist on proper transfer documents or, failing that, satisfactory evidence and an indemnity bond. In the absence of a transfer by the registered holder and compliance with those formalities, the plaintiff could not compel transfer. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 21 Feb 1902 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292542