https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194009 The court allowed the application for substitution of the petitioner in a company petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The judge held that the Company Law Board had the inherent power to substitute the applicant as the petitioner, subject to the petition's validity. Despite the absence of specific enabling provisions like Section 405 or Rule 101, the substitution was permitted, allowing the applicant to replace the second petitioner who was allowed to withdraw. en-us Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194009 The court allowed the application for substitution of the petitioner in a company petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The judge held that the Company Law Board had the inherent power to substitute the applicant as the petitioner, subject to the petition's validity. Despite the absence of specific enabling provisions like Section 405 or Rule 101, the substitution was permitted, allowing the applicant to replace the second petitioner who was allowed to withdraw. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194009