Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2000)100CompCas355
..... shri seervai in his reply submitted that the law has changed after the aforesaid cases have been decided with the insertion of section 22a of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, and thereafter with the promulgation of the depositories act whereby the companies act has also been amended, thereby the shares of a public company have become freely transferable. ..... the respondent-company, vide its letter dated october 14, 1997, conveyed the company's decision to refuse to register the transfers of the said shares alleging that the petitioners have violated the provisions of chapters ii and iii of the sebi (substantial acquisition of shares and takeover) regulations, 1997, by acquiring more than the stipulated percentage of shares in concert with others. ..... it is further submitted that as per the provisions of section 111a, the petitioners are entitled to have shares registered in their name since the respondent-company being a listed company is bound by the listing agreement and further after taking into account the share transfer provisions of the companies act as amended through the depositories act, 1996, which is effective from september 20, 1995, the listed company has no right to refuse the transfer of shares as the shares are freely transferable.5. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2008)144CompCas830
..... ) that by a recent amendment brought about by the depositories ordinance, 1996, section 111 has been confined to a private company and a new section 111a empowers the company law board to direct any company to rectify the register or the records if the transfer of shares is in contravention of the provisions of the securities and exchange hoard of india act or regulations made there under or in the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985, being obiter-dicta will not render any assistance to this bench, while adjudicating the lis between the contesting parties before me. ..... (a) whether the appeal was in time; (b) whether a will executed by a hindu in the union territory is required to be probated and (c) whether the company was rightly insisting on a probate of the will or letters of administration in the facts and circumstances of the case, upon which the clb categorically came to the conclusion that (i) there was no need in that case for a probate of will executed in delhi: (ii) the board of directors never applied their mind to the provisions of relevant article of association of the company; and (iii) the objection relating to the validity of the will is not .....
Tag this Judgment!