https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259216 Recall jurisdiction over an ex parte order admitting a company petition and directing advertisement was declined because the applicant showed no sufficient cause for its delayed challenge. The Court noted that the application was filed long after the applicant became aware of the admission order, without any satisfactory explanation for not seeking timely protection against advertisement or moving earlier for recall. Since the petition had already been advertised and the applicant could still file a reply and contest the winding-up proceedings, no prejudice warranting recall was shown. The materials also disclosed a prima facie basis for admission, leaving no ground to interfere. en-us Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 06:43:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259216 Recall jurisdiction over an ex parte order admitting a company petition and directing advertisement was declined because the applicant showed no sufficient cause for its delayed challenge. The Court noted that the application was filed long after the applicant became aware of the admission order, without any satisfactory explanation for not seeking timely protection against advertisement or moving earlier for recall. Since the petition had already been advertised and the applicant could still file a reply and contest the winding-up proceedings, no prejudice warranting recall was shown. The materials also disclosed a prima facie basis for admission, leaving no ground to interfere. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259216