https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449419 A rectificatory application under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act could not be used to reopen a concluded order or introduce fresh evidence after the statutory period had expired, so the belated request for amendment and reconsideration of revival was rejected. Additional documents were also refused because the applicant had not shown due diligence in producing them earlier, and permission to seek amendment did not extend to filling gaps in the original case. The High Court's liberty to seek revival was confined to the permissible procedural course and did not enlarge the substantive relief available. The appeal therefore failed. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449419 A rectificatory application under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act could not be used to reopen a concluded order or introduce fresh evidence after the statutory period had expired, so the belated request for amendment and reconsideration of revival was rejected. Additional documents were also refused because the applicant had not shown due diligence in producing them earlier, and permission to seek amendment did not extend to filling gaps in the original case. The High Court's liberty to seek revival was confined to the permissible procedural course and did not enlarge the substantive relief available. The appeal therefore failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449419