<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (3) TMI 570 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104580</link>
    <description>Review jurisdiction permits correction only of an error apparent on the face of the record, not reappreciation of evidence or reconsideration of merits. An erroneous reference to publication in the Official Gazette and Government Gazette was treated as a clerical or record error because the admission order had dispensed with such publication while requiring newspaper advertisement; the reference was therefore deleted. Dispensation of Official Gazette publication was considered permissible under the applicable company court rules and inherent powers, making any omission an irregularity rather than an illegality invalidating the winding-up order. Challenges to restoration and debt-related matters remained outside review scope.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:19:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 570 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104580</link>
      <description>Review jurisdiction permits correction only of an error apparent on the face of the record, not reappreciation of evidence or reconsideration of merits. An erroneous reference to publication in the Official Gazette and Government Gazette was treated as a clerical or record error because the admission order had dispensed with such publication while requiring newspaper advertisement; the reference was therefore deleted. Dispensation of Official Gazette publication was considered permissible under the applicable company court rules and inherent powers, making any omission an irregularity rather than an illegality invalidating the winding-up order. Challenges to restoration and debt-related matters remained outside review scope.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>