https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292734 A procedural amendment to the insolvency notice rule was held not to operate retrospectively where the petition had already been filed and notices had already been served under the former rules. The court reasoned that a change in procedure may apply to pending matters only if it does not prejudice accrued rights or require repetition of steps lawfully completed. Since the petitioner had done all that the existing procedure required and the matter had moved beyond his control, fresh notice could not be demanded merely because of the later amendment. The remand for rehearing was therefore erroneous, and the petition was allowed. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 1945 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:01:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292734 A procedural amendment to the insolvency notice rule was held not to operate retrospectively where the petition had already been filed and notices had already been served under the former rules. The court reasoned that a change in procedure may apply to pending matters only if it does not prejudice accrued rights or require repetition of steps lawfully completed. Since the petitioner had done all that the existing procedure required and the matter had moved beyond his control, fresh notice could not be demanded merely because of the later amendment. The remand for rehearing was therefore erroneous, and the petition was allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Nov 1945 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292734