https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99410 An interlocutory order in a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing interested shareholders to be added and transposing the original petitioner, did not finally determine any substantive right or liability and was therefore not a judgment appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The company court also had power to apply Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, because no provision of the Act or Rules excluded such procedural joinder. The added shareholders were properly joined to enable effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. en-us Mon, 13 May 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:22:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99410 An interlocutory order in a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing interested shareholders to be added and transposing the original petitioner, did not finally determine any substantive right or liability and was therefore not a judgment appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The company court also had power to apply Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, because no provision of the Act or Rules excluded such procedural joinder. The added shareholders were properly joined to enable effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 May 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99410