https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403669 The Tribunal refused to condone delay or set aside the ex parte order after the matter had already culminated in a final order. It noted that multiple opportunities had been granted, the proceedings had attained finality, and the Tribunal had become functus officio, so there was no basis to reopen or modify the concluded matter. It also noticed that the proviso to Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 restricts amendment of an order where an appeal has been preferred. The requested procedural relief was therefore rejected, and the ex parte order was left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403669 The Tribunal refused to condone delay or set aside the ex parte order after the matter had already culminated in a final order. It noted that multiple opportunities had been granted, the proceedings had attained finality, and the Tribunal had become functus officio, so there was no basis to reopen or modify the concluded matter. It also noticed that the proviso to Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 restricts amendment of an order where an appeal has been preferred. The requested procedural relief was therefore rejected, and the ex parte order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403669