https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110965 The appellant's prayer to set aside multiple orders in Co. Petition No. 60 of 1994 was restricted by the court to challenge only specific orders within the limitation period. The court upheld the validity of the sale of valuable property through a private contract, deeming the offer fair and reasonable. The challenge to the valuation order was dismissed due to delay tactics as the appellant failed to act on the property's valuation established earlier. The appellant's explanation for not challenging a previous order was deemed inconsistent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs of Rs. 25,000. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:58:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110965 The appellant's prayer to set aside multiple orders in Co. Petition No. 60 of 1994 was restricted by the court to challenge only specific orders within the limitation period. The court upheld the validity of the sale of valuable property through a private contract, deeming the offer fair and reasonable. The challenge to the valuation order was dismissed due to delay tactics as the appellant failed to act on the property's valuation established earlier. The appellant's explanation for not challenging a previous order was deemed inconsistent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs of Rs. 25,000. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110965