https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97835 The court dismissed the applications seeking to recall, vacate, set aside, or modify the ex parte order dated 18th January, 1960. It held that the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the completed order, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation. The applicants were also denied the right to inspect the liquidation file and the liquidator's statement, as their rights were not affected by the order under scrutiny. The court highlighted the confidentiality of such information and upheld the procedure outlined in Rule 243 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The applications were dismissed with costs. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:42:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97835 The court dismissed the applications seeking to recall, vacate, set aside, or modify the ex parte order dated 18th January, 1960. It held that the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the completed order, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation. The applicants were also denied the right to inspect the liquidation file and the liquidator's statement, as their rights were not affected by the order under scrutiny. The court highlighted the confidentiality of such information and upheld the procedure outlined in Rule 243 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The applications were dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 15 Jul 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97835