https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301718 The High Court found that the petitioner's counsel misled the court by falsely stating that instalments were timely deposited as per court direction. It was revealed that only the initial instalment was paid, with subsequent ones missed. The court held that the petitioner, after defaulting on payments, could not challenge the one-time settlement terms. Emphasizing the prior order for instalment payments, the court dismissed the petition, advising the petitioner to pursue legal remedies if disputing the settlement terms. en-us Tue, 21 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 17 Apr 2022 19:52:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301718 The High Court found that the petitioner's counsel misled the court by falsely stating that instalments were timely deposited as per court direction. It was revealed that only the initial instalment was paid, with subsequent ones missed. The court held that the petitioner, after defaulting on payments, could not challenge the one-time settlement terms. Emphasizing the prior order for instalment payments, the court dismissed the petition, advising the petitioner to pursue legal remedies if disputing the settlement terms. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 21 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301718