Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the 03.01.2024 order merely substituted the investigating agency designated by the earlier 11.03.2020 order and did not constitute a recall or review of that order. The Tribunal found the principal order remained in full effect and the modification did not expand or alter its substantive objective; it only changed the machinery to carry out the previously authorized investigation. The change did not impinge on the appellant's legal rights or exceed NCLT's jurisdiction. Pendency of a writ filed by the respondent in the HC was held not to preclude independent adjudication by the Tribunal or necessitate interference with the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.