<?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>1956 (3) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97373</link>
    <description>After substitution of a contributory in a winding up petition, the substituted petitioner may file a fresh amended petition under Rule 11(ii) with such changes as he wishes to incorporate, provided the amended pleading does not depart in substance from the original grounds for winding up. The rule is broad and is not confined to a bare recital of substituted locus standi; allegations personal to the original petitioner may be omitted and the petition redrafted in the substituted petitioner&#039;s own form. Here, the amendments were only a fuller amplification of the original allegations and introduced no essential new basis, so the preliminary objection failed and the amended petition could proceed as filed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:11:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (3) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97373</link>
      <description>After substitution of a contributory in a winding up petition, the substituted petitioner may file a fresh amended petition under Rule 11(ii) with such changes as he wishes to incorporate, provided the amended pleading does not depart in substance from the original grounds for winding up. The rule is broad and is not confined to a bare recital of substituted locus standi; allegations personal to the original petitioner may be omitted and the petition redrafted in the substituted petitioner&#039;s own form. Here, the amendments were only a fuller amplification of the original allegations and introduced no essential new basis, so the preliminary objection failed and the amended petition could proceed as filed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>