https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126912 A non-speaking order set aside by the High Court did not deprive the Company Law Board of competence to hear the matter afresh, because the earlier setting aside was not on jurisdictional grounds and liberty had been granted to seek relief again. The petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was also not barred by section 10 CPC, since the earlier suit involved different reliefs and did not present the same matter in issue. The pending company suit did not govern or preclude the oppression and mismanagement claims, as the grievances and reliefs were distinct. en-us Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:10:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126912 A non-speaking order set aside by the High Court did not deprive the Company Law Board of competence to hear the matter afresh, because the earlier setting aside was not on jurisdictional grounds and liberty had been granted to seek relief again. The petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was also not barred by section 10 CPC, since the earlier suit involved different reliefs and did not present the same matter in issue. The pending company suit did not govern or preclude the oppression and mismanagement claims, as the grievances and reliefs were distinct. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126912