https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104995 Fresh petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were held not maintainable where they merely sought to reopen the same order already challenged and rejected. Repeated invocation of inherent jurisdiction on identical grounds was treated as an abuse of process, particularly because no genuine change in circumstances was shown. The connected criminal proceedings did not alter the position, and the proper remedy against the earlier dismissal was to approach the Apex Court. Earlier findings concerning return of company property and the effect of the company's notice and resolution were left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:07:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104995 Fresh petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were held not maintainable where they merely sought to reopen the same order already challenged and rejected. Repeated invocation of inherent jurisdiction on identical grounds was treated as an abuse of process, particularly because no genuine change in circumstances was shown. The connected criminal proceedings did not alter the position, and the proper remedy against the earlier dismissal was to approach the Apex Court. Earlier findings concerning return of company property and the effect of the company's notice and resolution were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104995