https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97257 A fresh petition for compulsory winding up was considered maintainable in the East Punjab High Court even though an earlier winding-up petition by the same petitioner against the same company was still pending in the Lahore High Court. Article 13 of the High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 preserved pending original-side proceedings for determination by the Lahore High Court, but it did not create a bar against a second petition in a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was treated as a stay provision, not a rule requiring dismissal. The existence of the earlier petition therefore did not by itself defeat maintainability, and the single Judge's dismissal of the application was incorrect. en-us Thu, 01 Oct 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:08:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97257 A fresh petition for compulsory winding up was considered maintainable in the East Punjab High Court even though an earlier winding-up petition by the same petitioner against the same company was still pending in the Lahore High Court. Article 13 of the High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 preserved pending original-side proceedings for determination by the Lahore High Court, but it did not create a bar against a second petition in a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was treated as a stay provision, not a rule requiring dismissal. The existence of the earlier petition therefore did not by itself defeat maintainability, and the single Judge's dismissal of the application was incorrect. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Oct 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97257