https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460225 An appeal under section 10F was treated as maintainable despite being filed after the ordinary sixty-day period because a rectification application had been filed and adjudicated within that period, so the challenge could not be rejected at the threshold on limitation alone. The Company Law Board also erred in dismissing the company petition and refusing rectification on the footing that a composite petition under sections 111, 397 and 398 was impermissible; that approach overlooked the pleadings and the merits had not been finally examined. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter left open for consideration on merits. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jan 2025 20:53:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460225 An appeal under section 10F was treated as maintainable despite being filed after the ordinary sixty-day period because a rectification application had been filed and adjudicated within that period, so the challenge could not be rejected at the threshold on limitation alone. The Company Law Board also erred in dismissing the company petition and refusing rectification on the footing that a composite petition under sections 111, 397 and 398 was impermissible; that approach overlooked the pleadings and the merits had not been finally examined. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter left open for consideration on merits. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460225