https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771919 Review jurisdiction under Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the merits of an earlier order. The text states that the impugned observations did not treat the IRP report as without legal effect and did not bar its consideration in appropriate proceedings. Questions on the report's legality, veracity, probative value, and the scope of the IRP's actions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were said to lie within the NCLT's domain, which was already seized of the matter. The earlier observations were therefore not shown to warrant review. en-us Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 08:34:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771919 Review jurisdiction under Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the merits of an earlier order. The text states that the impugned observations did not treat the IRP report as without legal effect and did not bar its consideration in appropriate proceedings. Questions on the report's legality, veracity, probative value, and the scope of the IRP's actions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were said to lie within the NCLT's domain, which was already seized of the matter. The earlier observations were therefore not shown to warrant review. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771919