https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96595 Clarifies that the limitation period for an appeal against an order directing public examination of directors begins when the substantive Section 196 order is made and communicated to the parties; subsequent procedural refusals or orders do not constitute fresh orders that restart limitation. Because the substantive, appealable order was communicated by 1930, later refusals by the District Judge did not alter the commencement date, and the appeal is therefore time-barred, resulting in dismissal in favour of the respondent. en-us Tue, 21 Jun 1932 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:20:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96595 Clarifies that the limitation period for an appeal against an order directing public examination of directors begins when the substantive Section 196 order is made and communicated to the parties; subsequent procedural refusals or orders do not constitute fresh orders that restart limitation. Because the substantive, appealable order was communicated by 1930, later refusals by the District Judge did not alter the commencement date, and the appeal is therefore time-barred, resulting in dismissal in favour of the respondent. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 21 Jun 1932 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96595