https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413943 An order extending time to take steps for restoration of a company application, and consequentially restoring the appeal, was upheld because it merely preserved the parties' rights and did not finally decide abatement. The Single Judge expressly kept open the appellant's ability to contest the appeal and the supporting restoration affidavit before the Company Court. Since the appellant's objections could still be raised in the pending proceedings, the exercise of discretion was found neither perverse nor prejudicial. The challenge to the restoration order was therefore rejected and no interference was called for. en-us Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:17:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413943 An order extending time to take steps for restoration of a company application, and consequentially restoring the appeal, was upheld because it merely preserved the parties' rights and did not finally decide abatement. The Single Judge expressly kept open the appellant's ability to contest the appeal and the supporting restoration affidavit before the Company Court. Since the appellant's objections could still be raised in the pending proceedings, the exercise of discretion was found neither perverse nor prejudicial. The challenge to the restoration order was therefore rejected and no interference was called for. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413943