https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363562 An appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be time-barred because the filing exceeded the outer limit of sixty days plus a further sixty days on sufficient cause. The earlier interim order in a connected matter did not excuse limitation, and a later Supreme Court direction made the challenge redundant. On jurisdiction, filing a Section 8 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not by itself oust the Company Law Board's power to pass interlocutory or incidental orders before the statutory reference conditions are decided. The impugned orders were therefore not void ab initio, and the appeal failed. en-us Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363562 An appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be time-barred because the filing exceeded the outer limit of sixty days plus a further sixty days on sufficient cause. The earlier interim order in a connected matter did not excuse limitation, and a later Supreme Court direction made the challenge redundant. On jurisdiction, filing a Section 8 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not by itself oust the Company Law Board's power to pass interlocutory or incidental orders before the statutory reference conditions are decided. The impugned orders were therefore not void ab initio, and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363562