Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 Court had jurisdiction to recall and cancel its earlier ex parte order confirming alterations to the memorandum of association without prior approval of the Local Government.
Analysis: The alterations had been confirmed ex parte under the Companies Act, but it later emerged that, for a company registered under section 26, the proper course was first to obtain the Local Government's approval of the proposed alterations as consistent with the continuation of the licence and only thereafter seek court confirmation. The objection that the Court lacked power to go behind its own earlier order was rejected. The power of review was distinguished from the duty to recall an invalid order, and it was held that where no vested right had accrued to any person, the Court was bound to correct its own erroneous ex parte order.
Conclusion: The Court held that it had jurisdiction to recall and cancel the earlier confirmation order and to keep the alteration application pending to enable the company to obtain the Local Government's approval.
Ratio Decidendi: A court has jurisdiction, and indeed a duty, to recall and cancel its own invalid ex parte order where no vested rights have accrued and the order was made without satisfying a mandatory precondition.