https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101799 Section 402 relief was held to operate only within the seisin retained by an order made under sections 397 and 398, so it could not be invoked by independent later applications where the earlier consent order had not preserved jurisdiction over the new grievances. On the facts, an administrator could not be appointed through these proceedings because the requested control lay outside the scope of the prior order. Contracts granting playing time to third parties were also treated as valid, since the exhibitors had no notice of internal disputes and there was no proof of fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or coercion. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:55:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101799 Section 402 relief was held to operate only within the seisin retained by an order made under sections 397 and 398, so it could not be invoked by independent later applications where the earlier consent order had not preserved jurisdiction over the new grievances. On the facts, an administrator could not be appointed through these proceedings because the requested control lay outside the scope of the prior order. Contracts granting playing time to third parties were also treated as valid, since the exhibitors had no notice of internal disputes and there was no proof of fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or coercion. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 09 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101799