https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110635 A petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 is representative in character, but withdrawal of the original company petition with leave under rule 88(2) meant the petition ceased to exist. In those circumstances, a consenting shareholder could not maintain or continue an appeal without an independent surviving right to proceed. The doctrine of merger did not apply because the Supreme Court only granted liberty to file an independent appeal and did not disturb the withdrawal orders. Condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not create a fiction that preserved the appeal after withdrawal. The proceedings therefore could not survive. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:19:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110635 A petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 is representative in character, but withdrawal of the original company petition with leave under rule 88(2) meant the petition ceased to exist. In those circumstances, a consenting shareholder could not maintain or continue an appeal without an independent surviving right to proceed. The doctrine of merger did not apply because the Supreme Court only granted liberty to file an independent appeal and did not disturb the withdrawal orders. Condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not create a fiction that preserved the appeal after withdrawal. The proceedings therefore could not survive. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110635