https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247157 The Delhi High Court discussed finality of a clarified Division Bench order in winding-up proceedings and held that the company could not reopen the earlier admission of the petition on merits. It noted that the prior findings supporting admission had attained finality, that no timely request had been made to dispense with advertisement, and that the same objections had already been considered. The Court also reiterated that cross-examination under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC is discretionary and is allowed only where necessary in the interests of justice; repetitive and delay-oriented applications will not justify that relief. The applications were dismissed in limine. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 May 2014 19:02:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247157 The Delhi High Court discussed finality of a clarified Division Bench order in winding-up proceedings and held that the company could not reopen the earlier admission of the petition on merits. It noted that the prior findings supporting admission had attained finality, that no timely request had been made to dispense with advertisement, and that the same objections had already been considered. The Court also reiterated that cross-examination under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC is discretionary and is allowed only where necessary in the interests of justice; repetitive and delay-oriented applications will not justify that relief. The applications were dismissed in limine. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247157