Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal could rectify its earlier order to grant consequential dividend relief when an appeal had already been preferred against that order, and whether omission to expressly grant the relief amounted to an error warranting rectification.
Analysis: The statutory power to amend an order is confined to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed period, but the proviso to Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 bars amendment of any order against which an appeal has been preferred. The earlier order had already been carried in appeal, and the applicant had not challenged the omission to grant consequential relief at the appropriate stage. The principle reflected in Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 supports the view that a relief claimed but not expressly granted is treated as refused. On that basis, the omission could not be reopened by rectification.
Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable and its dismissal was .
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the dismissal of the rectification request was sustained, leaving no basis for grant of the claimed consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot amend its order under the rectification power once an appeal has been preferred against that order, and a relief not expressly granted is treated as refused rather than as a clerical omission.