Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6261 to 6280 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 420 of the Companies Act confers only a limited power on the Tribunal to rectify a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed period; it does not give a party a right to seek review or reconsideration on merits. An application styled as rectification but directed at recalling disclosure, attachment and restraint directions was treated as a review petition in substance and held not maintainable. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the principle that an error requiring reappraisal or a different view on merits is not a patent mistake capable of rectification. The refusal to recall the earlier order was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Section 420 of the Companies Act confers only a limited power on the Tribunal to rectify a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed period; it does not give a party a right to seek review or reconsideration on merits. An application styled as rectification but directed at recalling disclosure, attachment and restraint directions was treated as a review petition in substance and held not maintainable. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the principle that an error requiring reappraisal or a different view on merits is not a patent mistake capable of rectification. The refusal to recall the earlier order was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.