https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196732 Serious doubt over the genuineness and authority of a suit withdrawal, including the change of advocate and the matter being mentioned for withdrawal when not listed for that purpose, justified setting aside the orders refusing recall and remitting the recall application for fresh consideration. The challenge relating to removal of directors and allotment of shares failed because the statutory non-compliance alleged was not shown to be erroneous, and the complaint under Section 340 CrPC was rejected for lack of sufficient basis. The appeal on withdrawal was allowed for rehearing, while the connected challenge and request for criminal action were dismissed. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196732 Serious doubt over the genuineness and authority of a suit withdrawal, including the change of advocate and the matter being mentioned for withdrawal when not listed for that purpose, justified setting aside the orders refusing recall and remitting the recall application for fresh consideration. The challenge relating to removal of directors and allotment of shares failed because the statutory non-compliance alleged was not shown to be erroneous, and the complaint under Section 340 CrPC was rejected for lack of sufficient basis. The appeal on withdrawal was allowed for rehearing, while the connected challenge and request for criminal action were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196732