https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258229 A co-respondent before the Company Law Board had no right to file a counter-reply to another respondent's reply because the Regulations expressly permitted only the petitioner to file a counter-reply. The procedural scheme therefore excluded a subsequent pleading by one respondent against another respondent's reply. The inherent power provision could not be used to bypass that express bar, since inherent powers apply only where the Regulations are silent. The Court also found no breach of natural justice, as any allegations made by the co-respondent were not conclusively established against the appellant merely by being raised. Refusal of permission was therefore justified. en-us Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2015 08:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258229 A co-respondent before the Company Law Board had no right to file a counter-reply to another respondent's reply because the Regulations expressly permitted only the petitioner to file a counter-reply. The procedural scheme therefore excluded a subsequent pleading by one respondent against another respondent's reply. The inherent power provision could not be used to bypass that express bar, since inherent powers apply only where the Regulations are silent. The Court also found no breach of natural justice, as any allegations made by the co-respondent were not conclusively established against the appellant merely by being raised. Refusal of permission was therefore justified. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258229