https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448335 A concluded writ petition was not restored on the basis of alleged non-disclosure by the respondents, because the omission to mention parallel proceedings did not amount to legally cognisable fraud absent proof of deceit, unfair advantage, or prejudice sufficient to vitiate the earlier disposal. The Court also noted that seeking restoration without challenging the prior disposal in review would effectively reopen a concluded order through a fresh application. A later buyback notice and related steps under the Companies Act were treated as a separate, independent cause of action, leaving any challenge to be pursued in appropriate proceedings rather than by reviving the disposed writ petition. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:43:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448335 A concluded writ petition was not restored on the basis of alleged non-disclosure by the respondents, because the omission to mention parallel proceedings did not amount to legally cognisable fraud absent proof of deceit, unfair advantage, or prejudice sufficient to vitiate the earlier disposal. The Court also noted that seeking restoration without challenging the prior disposal in review would effectively reopen a concluded order through a fresh application. A later buyback notice and related steps under the Companies Act were treated as a separate, independent cause of action, leaving any challenge to be pursued in appropriate proceedings rather than by reviving the disposed writ petition. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448335