https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112582 An affirmed winding-up order could not be indirectly reopened through a fresh recall application by a former director, because the proper remedy against such an order was an appeal. Once the company had already appealed and failed, the winding-up order merged in the appellate decision and lost scope for collateral challenge. The proposed recall application was therefore not recognised in law, and the accompanying request for condonation of delay and stay could not revive an otherwise untenable challenge. The document confirms that a finally affirmed winding-up order is not amenable to indirect reopening through derivative applications. en-us Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:54:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112582 An affirmed winding-up order could not be indirectly reopened through a fresh recall application by a former director, because the proper remedy against such an order was an appeal. Once the company had already appealed and failed, the winding-up order merged in the appellate decision and lost scope for collateral challenge. The proposed recall application was therefore not recognised in law, and the accompanying request for condonation of delay and stay could not revive an otherwise untenable challenge. The document confirms that a finally affirmed winding-up order is not amenable to indirect reopening through derivative applications. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112582