<?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>2024 (4) TMI 307 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751126</link>
    <description>Delhi HC upheld CLB&#039;s decision regarding division of deceased&#039;s shares among three children. Court found 100 shares in Vantage Construction (P) Ltd and 5 shares in Earl Chawla Company (P) Ltd constituted movable property under testator&#039;s will, requiring equal division. CLB&#039;s cancellation of 9800 shares allotted to one heir was affirmed, finding the allotment was made without valid board meeting and behind other heirs&#039; backs. Court rejected appellant&#039;s challenge, noting deceased had acknowledged other heirs&#039; 1/3rd entitlement but sought compensation for alleged losses. Appeal dismissed as CLB&#039;s judgment showed no patent illegality or perversity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 307 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751126</link>
      <description>Delhi HC upheld CLB&#039;s decision regarding division of deceased&#039;s shares among three children. Court found 100 shares in Vantage Construction (P) Ltd and 5 shares in Earl Chawla Company (P) Ltd constituted movable property under testator&#039;s will, requiring equal division. CLB&#039;s cancellation of 9800 shares allotted to one heir was affirmed, finding the allotment was made without valid board meeting and behind other heirs&#039; backs. Court rejected appellant&#039;s challenge, noting deceased had acknowledged other heirs&#039; 1/3rd entitlement but sought compensation for alleged losses. Appeal dismissed as CLB&#039;s judgment showed no patent illegality or perversity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>