https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312278 The tribunal dismissed the applicant's interlocutory application to receive additional documents and revive a company. Despite a High Court (HC) order allowing an amendment application within two years, the applicant failed to act within the timeframe and instead filed a fresh petition, which was later withdrawn. The tribunal found no apparent mistake in the original dismissal order and deemed the request for additional documents outside the amendment's scope, rendering the application meritless. The registry was instructed to notify all parties and their counsel, with e-mail and physical copies of the order available upon request. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2024 18:27:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312278 The tribunal dismissed the applicant's interlocutory application to receive additional documents and revive a company. Despite a High Court (HC) order allowing an amendment application within two years, the applicant failed to act within the timeframe and instead filed a fresh petition, which was later withdrawn. The tribunal found no apparent mistake in the original dismissal order and deemed the request for additional documents outside the amendment's scope, rendering the application meritless. The registry was instructed to notify all parties and their counsel, with e-mail and physical copies of the order available upon request. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312278