https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103219 Omission of detailed grounds in a judge's summons under section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 is not a jurisdictional defect fatal to a misfeasance proceeding. Rule 260 requires the summons to state the nature of relief and grounds, but rule 261 allows the court at the preliminary stage to direct filing of points of claim and defence and to shape further procedure. The High Court held that the defect is undesirable but not a basis for rejection, because the procedure is intended to permit later particularisation and to advance justice rather than defeat claims on technical grounds. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:57:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103219 Omission of detailed grounds in a judge's summons under section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 is not a jurisdictional defect fatal to a misfeasance proceeding. Rule 260 requires the summons to state the nature of relief and grounds, but rule 261 allows the court at the preliminary stage to direct filing of points of claim and defence and to shape further procedure. The High Court held that the defect is undesirable but not a basis for rejection, because the procedure is intended to permit later particularisation and to advance justice rather than defeat claims on technical grounds. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 17 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103219