Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Recall under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules was held confined to apparent procedural or similar infirmity in the order itself and could not be used to reopen a merits decision. The Tribunal treated a recall application based on later-discovered documents as a disguised attempt to seek review, which the Code does not permit, and held that subsequent material cannot justify recalling an order passed on merits. It also held that once the original section 9 order had been affirmed in appeal, it could not thereafter be reopened by recall. The appeal was dismissed and rejection of the recall application upheld.
Recall under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules was held confined to apparent procedural or similar infirmity in the order itself and could not be used to reopen a merits decision. The Tribunal treated a recall application based on later-discovered documents as a disguised attempt to seek review, which the Code does not permit, and held that subsequent material cannot justify recalling an order passed on merits. It also held that once the original section 9 order had been affirmed in appeal, it could not thereafter be reopened by recall. The appeal was dismissed and rejection of the recall application upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
