https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188484 A company's attempt to recall an earlier order under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 failed because the Court treated its controlling individual's continuous presence and participation as effective representation. The Court found the claim of complete absence from the proceedings unconvincing, especially since the sale direction had originally been obtained at the company's instance and the later order merely implemented that direction. It also recognised that, where necessary, the Court may look beyond separate corporate identity to prevent abuse of process and assess the real conduct of the parties. On that basis, recall or setting aside of the earlier order was refused. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:23:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188484 A company's attempt to recall an earlier order under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 failed because the Court treated its controlling individual's continuous presence and participation as effective representation. The Court found the claim of complete absence from the proceedings unconvincing, especially since the sale direction had originally been obtained at the company's instance and the later order merely implemented that direction. It also recognised that, where necessary, the Court may look beyond separate corporate identity to prevent abuse of process and assess the real conduct of the parties. On that basis, recall or setting aside of the earlier order was refused. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188484