https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449359 Rectification jurisdiction under Section 420(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and must be invoked within the prescribed two-year period. An application seeking receipt of additional documents and reconsideration of revival of the company was held not maintainable because the liberty granted by the High Court was limited to amendment or rectification of the earlier order, not a fresh attempt to enlarge the proceedings. The request to adduce additional evidence was also declined, as such evidence cannot be used to fill lacunae or reopen revival without showing due diligence. The dismissal of the application was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 07:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449359 Rectification jurisdiction under Section 420(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and must be invoked within the prescribed two-year period. An application seeking receipt of additional documents and reconsideration of revival of the company was held not maintainable because the liberty granted by the High Court was limited to amendment or rectification of the earlier order, not a fresh attempt to enlarge the proceedings. The request to adduce additional evidence was also declined, as such evidence cannot be used to fill lacunae or reopen revival without showing due diligence. The dismissal of the application was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449359