<?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>1968 (6) TMI 24 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98489</link>
    <description>In company winding-up proceedings, the right of appeal under the Companies Act exists only for a person who was a party to the specific proceeding in which the impugned order was made. A supporting creditor in the winding-up petition was treated as a stranger to the later sale-sanction proceeding because he did not appear at the hearing or seek participation under the relevant rules. Such a non-party cannot appeal as of right merely because he is aggrieved, and any request for leave depends on a satisfactory explanation for non-participation and proper grounds for interference. Leave may be refused where the appellant knew of the process but raised new grounds for the first time in appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:43:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (6) TMI 24 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98489</link>
      <description>In company winding-up proceedings, the right of appeal under the Companies Act exists only for a person who was a party to the specific proceeding in which the impugned order was made. A supporting creditor in the winding-up petition was treated as a stranger to the later sale-sanction proceeding because he did not appear at the hearing or seek participation under the relevant rules. Such a non-party cannot appeal as of right merely because he is aggrieved, and any request for leave depends on a satisfactory explanation for non-participation and proper grounds for interference. Leave may be refused where the appellant knew of the process but raised new grounds for the first time in appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>