https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113179 The court allowed deposit holders and transferees to intervene in the appeal, impleading them as respondents. The Central Government, despite a right to make representation, failed to do so in a timely manner, leading to the appeal being filed. Allegations of delay were attributed to officials' negligence, prompting a vigilance enquiry. With over 85,000 depositors at stake, the court emphasized protecting their interests. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded for a fresh decision to consider all parties' representations and safeguard depositors' interests. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113179 The court allowed deposit holders and transferees to intervene in the appeal, impleading them as respondents. The Central Government, despite a right to make representation, failed to do so in a timely manner, leading to the appeal being filed. Allegations of delay were attributed to officials' negligence, prompting a vigilance enquiry. With over 85,000 depositors at stake, the court emphasized protecting their interests. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded for a fresh decision to consider all parties' representations and safeguard depositors' interests. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113179