<?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>1938 (3) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96763</link>
    <description>An application under section 235 of the Companies Act is an original proceeding in the nature of a suit, so the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to the extent it is not inconsistent with the statutory scheme and rules governing the application. A misfeasance petition must disclose the grounds of liability with sufficient particulars; general allegations are insufficient. The petition was adequate only where definite charges were pleaded, but not against the added respondent who was not specifically charged. Distinct and unrelated misfeasance claims should not be forced into one joint trial, and separate treatment was directed for claims lacking a common transactional nexus.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1938 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:16:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1938 (3) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96763</link>
      <description>An application under section 235 of the Companies Act is an original proceeding in the nature of a suit, so the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to the extent it is not inconsistent with the statutory scheme and rules governing the application. A misfeasance petition must disclose the grounds of liability with sufficient particulars; general allegations are insufficient. The petition was adequate only where definite charges were pleaded, but not against the added respondent who was not specifically charged. Distinct and unrelated misfeasance claims should not be forced into one joint trial, and separate treatment was directed for claims lacking a common transactional nexus.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1938 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>