<?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>1975 (9) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99322</link>
    <description>In proceedings under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 moved by judge&#039;s summons, the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 provide a special procedure that differs materially from the Code of Civil Procedure. Rules 260 and 261 contemplate appearance followed, if directed, by points of claim and points of defence, and the relevant forms do not require the applicant to set out facts at the summons stage. Accordingly, Order 8 Rule 1 CPC does not apply, and the respondent was not bound to file a written statement merely on appearance. As no adverse procedural consequence arose from that omission, the ex parte proceedings were not set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:42:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (9) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99322</link>
      <description>In proceedings under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 moved by judge&#039;s summons, the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 provide a special procedure that differs materially from the Code of Civil Procedure. Rules 260 and 261 contemplate appearance followed, if directed, by points of claim and points of defence, and the relevant forms do not require the applicant to set out facts at the summons stage. Accordingly, Order 8 Rule 1 CPC does not apply, and the respondent was not bound to file a written statement merely on appearance. As no adverse procedural consequence arose from that omission, the ex parte proceedings were not set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>