Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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.