https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108986 The court dismissed both appeals, upholding the restoration of the main petition due to a genuine mistake in noting the hearing date. The court affirmed the Principal Bench's discretion in deciding the place and time of sittings, finding no merit in the appellant's request for sittings in Madras. The court recognized the Company Law Board's inherent powers and clarified the application of relevant regulations. The decision to restore the petition was deemed justified, with no legal errors identified in the process. en-us Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:44:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108986 The court dismissed both appeals, upholding the restoration of the main petition due to a genuine mistake in noting the hearing date. The court affirmed the Principal Bench's discretion in deciding the place and time of sittings, finding no merit in the appellant's request for sittings in Madras. The court recognized the Company Law Board's inherent powers and clarified the application of relevant regulations. The decision to restore the petition was deemed justified, with no legal errors identified in the process. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108986