<?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>1936 (7) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96717</link>
    <description>In winding-up proceedings, a contributory&#039;s right to inspect documents in the Official Liquidator&#039;s custody was upheld, and speculative prejudice to persons yet to be examined was held insufficient to delay compliance. The court stated that a successor judge could not revisit an earlier inspection order merely on the grounds advanced, because the Companies Act did not permit a rehearing in that manner and no proper review application had been made. Once the court had exercised its discretion in favour of inspection, the Official Liquidator could not refuse, postpone, or effectively defeat that order on grounds of convenience.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:41:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1936 (7) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96717</link>
      <description>In winding-up proceedings, a contributory&#039;s right to inspect documents in the Official Liquidator&#039;s custody was upheld, and speculative prejudice to persons yet to be examined was held insufficient to delay compliance. The court stated that a successor judge could not revisit an earlier inspection order merely on the grounds advanced, because the Companies Act did not permit a rehearing in that manner and no proper review application had been made. Once the court had exercised its discretion in favour of inspection, the Official Liquidator could not refuse, postpone, or effectively defeat that order on grounds of convenience.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>