<?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>Court Rules NSE Cannot Halt Share Transfer; Orders Issuance of Duplicate Certificate to Petitioner.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83057</link>
    <description>This case pertains to the transfer of shares and the issuance of a duplicate share certificate. The key points are: The National Stock Exchange (NSE) issued a &quot;stop transfer&quot; direction to the transfer agent, citing default by a trading member in making payments. The petitioner challenged this direction, arguing that the shares did not constitute assets of the defaulting member. The court held that the NSE, being a stock exchange, is covered under the definition of &#039;State&#039; and amenable to writ jurisdiction. The impugned communication was neither an order nor a decision under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act (SCRA), and the NSE failed to show authority for issuing such a direction. The court quashed the impugned communication and con.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:53:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:53:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rules NSE Cannot Halt Share Transfer; Orders Issuance of Duplicate Certificate to Petitioner.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83057</link>
      <description>This case pertains to the transfer of shares and the issuance of a duplicate share certificate. The key points are: The National Stock Exchange (NSE) issued a &quot;stop transfer&quot; direction to the transfer agent, citing default by a trading member in making payments. The petitioner challenged this direction, arguing that the shares did not constitute assets of the defaulting member. The court held that the NSE, being a stock exchange, is covered under the definition of &#039;State&#039; and amenable to writ jurisdiction. The impugned communication was neither an order nor a decision under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act (SCRA), and the NSE failed to show authority for issuing such a direction. The court quashed the impugned communication and con.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:53:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>