The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its very recent decision, Harsha Nitin Kokate Vs. The Saraswat Co-op. Bank Limited & Others , held that position of a nominee under section 109A of the Companies Act is not merely that of a trustee for the estate of the deceased, and it further held that, " on the death of the share holder, the nominee would become entitled to all rights in the shares to the exclusion of all other persons ." This means that, the nominee will be made the beneficial owner thereof and all the rights incidental to ownership of shares would follow i.e. the right to transfer, pledge or hold the shares. The court based its decision on the express provisions of the section which provide as follows: S. 109A. Nomination of shares – (1) Every holder of shares in, or holder of debentures of a company may, at any time, nominate, in the prescribed manner, a person to whom his shares in or debentures of,...
In this post I present the arguments on this question from the State's perspective. The limit on abortion is purely a question of policy - It is well settled that the SC and HC will not interfere or adjudicate upon Government policy matters. (V.G Ramachandra, General Principles of Writ Jurisdiction, Vol. 1, 6th Ed. p. 550) The principle is firmly embedded in the Constitution, that the policy of law and expediency of passing it, are matters for the legislature to decide, while interpretation of laws and their validity fall within the exclusive adjudicatory functions of the court. ( Special Courts Bill, 1978, Re, (1979) 1 SCC 380, 405 ) This is because in complex social, economic or commercial matters decisions have to be taken keeping in mind several factors, and it is not possible for the courts to consider competing claims and conflicting interests and to conclude in which way the balance tilts. ( Nagaraj v. State of A.P, (1985) 1 SCC 523 ) First, barring a few parts...
Amongst the many conflicting decisions arising out the application of Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, one of them, is in respect of the operation of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the PWDV Act does not apply retrospectively and that an action under the Act can lie only if the acts of domestic violence are committed on or after 26 Oct 2006, i.e. the date on which the Act came into force. Similarly, a Delhi Metropolitan Court and a JMFC in Goa also took the view that this Act will not be applicable if the acts complained of have been committed prior to the passing of the Act. On the other hand the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court have taken a different view. They held that, the court is competent to take cognizance of the act of domestic violence committed even prior to the Act came into force and pass necessary protection orders. The Act can be applied retrospectively to take cognizance of the ac...
Comments
Post a Comment