https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104079 Recall of a respondent-deletion order was held maintainable under the Company Law Board's inherent powers preserved by Regulation 44, because the request was to restore party status in light of subsequent material and not a review under Order 47 CPC. The order was also held appealable under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, since it raised legal questions on recall jurisdiction, impleadment and the effect of the Board's reasoning. A question of law arose where the Board relied on unpleaded or uncontroverted facts and drew interim factual inferences without proper foundation. Refusal to implead the party was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on affidavit evidence. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:40:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104079 Recall of a respondent-deletion order was held maintainable under the Company Law Board's inherent powers preserved by Regulation 44, because the request was to restore party status in light of subsequent material and not a review under Order 47 CPC. The order was also held appealable under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, since it raised legal questions on recall jurisdiction, impleadment and the effect of the Board's reasoning. A question of law arose where the Board relied on unpleaded or uncontroverted facts and drew interim factual inferences without proper foundation. Refusal to implead the party was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on affidavit evidence. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104079