<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (11) TMI 1475 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462758</link>
    <description>An appeal cannot be altered at the refiling stage to replace the impugned orders with a different order and thereby introduce a fresh cause of action. The NCLAT held that once an appeal is filed, the record becomes part of the court record and may be corrected only to cure registry defects; refiling does not permit substitution of the challenged order without leave of the court. Because the original challenge to the earlier orders no longer survived after the substitution, the appeal on that basis was not maintainable. The appellant was left free to challenge the later order independently in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:45:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1475 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462758</link>
      <description>An appeal cannot be altered at the refiling stage to replace the impugned orders with a different order and thereby introduce a fresh cause of action. The NCLAT held that once an appeal is filed, the record becomes part of the court record and may be corrected only to cure registry defects; refiling does not permit substitution of the challenged order without leave of the court. Because the original challenge to the earlier orders no longer survived after the substitution, the appeal on that basis was not maintainable. The appellant was left free to challenge the later order independently in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>