https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113832 Section 19(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 operated as deemed consent where objections to the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme were not filed within sixty days, and no timely written request for extension was shown. The petitioner received the scheme but remained silent within the statutory period, so the further consequence under the provision followed. The Court distinguished authorities under the Consumer Protection Act and the Limitation Act because Section 19(2) expressly created deemed consent on non-response. The challenge to the orders therefore failed, as no jurisdictional error was shown. en-us Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113832 Section 19(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 operated as deemed consent where objections to the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme were not filed within sixty days, and no timely written request for extension was shown. The petitioner received the scheme but remained silent within the statutory period, so the further consequence under the provision followed. The Court distinguished authorities under the Consumer Protection Act and the Limitation Act because Section 19(2) expressly created deemed consent on non-response. The challenge to the orders therefore failed, as no jurisdictional error was shown. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113832