https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96687 An omission to raise the absence of notice under Rule 59 before the District Judge was treated as a technical objection that could not defeat the Official Liquidator. The appellant could rely only on objections already taken by other contributories, and those objections had been considered and rejected. Appropriation of the appellant's share capital towards the amount due did not terminate membership or amount to forfeiture of the share capital. The objection to inclusion in the contributories list therefore failed, and the appellant remained liable as a contributory. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:01:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96687 An omission to raise the absence of notice under Rule 59 before the District Judge was treated as a technical objection that could not defeat the Official Liquidator. The appellant could rely only on objections already taken by other contributories, and those objections had been considered and rejected. Appropriation of the appellant's share capital towards the amount due did not terminate membership or amount to forfeiture of the share capital. The objection to inclusion in the contributories list therefore failed, and the appellant remained liable as a contributory. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 02 Aug 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96687