https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305550 The HC held that review is confined to an error apparent, new material, or similar limited grounds, and cannot be used to reargue the merits; the challenge based on the Transfer of Property Act was misplaced because a company's name change does not amount to a transfer of property, and the Companies Act preserves the same legal entity with unchanged rights and liabilities, so review was rejected. On contempt, the Court found the refusal to mutate the company's name in the records to be unsustainable and, on the materials, prima facie wilful disobedience of the earlier writ direction, making contempt proceedings maintainable, though time was granted to purge the contempt before sentence. en-us Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305550 The HC held that review is confined to an error apparent, new material, or similar limited grounds, and cannot be used to reargue the merits; the challenge based on the Transfer of Property Act was misplaced because a company's name change does not amount to a transfer of property, and the Companies Act preserves the same legal entity with unchanged rights and liabilities, so review was rejected. On contempt, the Court found the refusal to mutate the company's name in the records to be unsustainable and, on the materials, prima facie wilful disobedience of the earlier writ direction, making contempt proceedings maintainable, though time was granted to purge the contempt before sentence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305550