https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196896 Lodging a caveat under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not create an automatic right to be heard in every proceeding, and failure to notify the caveator is not by itself enough to invalidate the proceedings or render the resulting order void. On the facts described, no special prejudice beyond non-service was shown, and the dispute lay before a specialised statutory forum with an alternate remedy under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. The writ court therefore declined to bypass the statutory framework or treat the Company Law Board proceedings as a nullity, and no writ interference was warranted. en-us Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:43:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196896 Lodging a caveat under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not create an automatic right to be heard in every proceeding, and failure to notify the caveator is not by itself enough to invalidate the proceedings or render the resulting order void. On the facts described, no special prejudice beyond non-service was shown, and the dispute lay before a specialised statutory forum with an alternate remedy under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. The writ court therefore declined to bypass the statutory framework or treat the Company Law Board proceedings as a nullity, and no writ interference was warranted. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196896