https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391940 An order confined to a limited procedural or jurisdictional question does not justify recall or clarification merely because it is said to have collateral impact on pending Section 34 proceedings or enforcement of the award. The Court found that the earlier order contained no finding that the award was binding on the petitioner and no view on the maintainability or merits of the Section 34 challenge. Its observations were limited to whether the proceedings could continue despite objections linked to insolvency proceedings and the absence of a claim before the NCLT. As no opinion on the merits of the award had been expressed, no prejudice arose and the recall application was rejected. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2020 08:59:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391940 An order confined to a limited procedural or jurisdictional question does not justify recall or clarification merely because it is said to have collateral impact on pending Section 34 proceedings or enforcement of the award. The Court found that the earlier order contained no finding that the award was binding on the petitioner and no view on the maintainability or merits of the Section 34 challenge. Its observations were limited to whether the proceedings could continue despite objections linked to insolvency proceedings and the absence of a claim before the NCLT. As no opinion on the merits of the award had been expressed, no prejudice arose and the recall application was rejected. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391940