<?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>1965 (8) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98236</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition was held maintainable against a company already struck off and dissolved, because the later statutory change in the Companies Act, 1956 preserved the court&#039;s power to order winding up notwithstanding dissolution. The appeal was treated as a continuation of the original proceedings, so the amended law could be applied. Section 647 was read as dealing with the stage after a winding-up order, not as requiring the court to apply the earlier law as a bar at the maintainability stage. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not assist, as no vested right was taken away and the objection was only procedural. The prior setting aside of dissolution was not treated as a necessary precondition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:24:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (8) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98236</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition was held maintainable against a company already struck off and dissolved, because the later statutory change in the Companies Act, 1956 preserved the court&#039;s power to order winding up notwithstanding dissolution. The appeal was treated as a continuation of the original proceedings, so the amended law could be applied. Section 647 was read as dealing with the stage after a winding-up order, not as requiring the court to apply the earlier law as a bar at the maintainability stage. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not assist, as no vested right was taken away and the objection was only procedural. The prior setting aside of dissolution was not treated as a necessary precondition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>