https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312519 The Delhi High Court rectified an inadvertent clerical error in its earlier order by amending paragraph 4 to state that the petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Creditors as Resolution Professional, not as Interim Resolution Professional. The order also records the omitted direction that no coercive steps shall be taken till the next date of hearing, restoring the interim protection intended to operate pending further hearing. The application was allowed and disposed of with the corrected text incorporated into the earlier order. en-us Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Feb 2024 05:57:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312519 The Delhi High Court rectified an inadvertent clerical error in its earlier order by amending paragraph 4 to state that the petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Creditors as Resolution Professional, not as Interim Resolution Professional. The order also records the omitted direction that no coercive steps shall be taken till the next date of hearing, restoring the interim protection intended to operate pending further hearing. The application was allowed and disposed of with the corrected text incorporated into the earlier order. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312519