https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212996 A party that relied on a drawn-up scheme order in earlier proceedings could not later reopen the matter by alleging that the order mistakenly omitted the North Mill. The Court held that the alleged mistake existed from the date of the order, yet no such plea was raised when the issue was directly in contest despite ample opportunity. Because the applicant had already proceeded on the basis of that order and the earlier adjudication had conclusively determined the underlying vesting issue, a fresh challenge to the same order was barred. The application was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected. en-us Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212996 A party that relied on a drawn-up scheme order in earlier proceedings could not later reopen the matter by alleging that the order mistakenly omitted the North Mill. The Court held that the alleged mistake existed from the date of the order, yet no such plea was raised when the issue was directly in contest despite ample opportunity. Because the applicant had already proceeded on the basis of that order and the earlier adjudication had conclusively determined the underlying vesting issue, a fresh challenge to the same order was barred. The application was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212996