https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104271 An appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 did not lie against a consent-based Company Law Board implementation order that merely gave effect to an earlier final decision. The order was consequential, made with the parties' concurrence, and intended to protect the appellant by requiring payment of consideration before transfer of shares. Because a right of appeal is purely statutory, it could not be enlarged to reopen settled factual findings or the implementation arrangement. The challenge on facts therefore failed, and the appeal was held not maintainable in law. en-us Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:31:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104271 An appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 did not lie against a consent-based Company Law Board implementation order that merely gave effect to an earlier final decision. The order was consequential, made with the parties' concurrence, and intended to protect the appellant by requiring payment of consideration before transfer of shares. Because a right of appeal is purely statutory, it could not be enlarged to reopen settled factual findings or the implementation arrangement. The challenge on facts therefore failed, and the appeal was held not maintainable in law. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104271