<?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>2025 (9) TMI 338 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH AT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777849</link>
    <description>Recall of an appellate order is confined to narrow inherent grounds, including fraud, collusion, patent lack of jurisdiction, a prejudicial mistake of the Court, or non-service of a necessary party, and cannot be used to re-open issues that belong in appeal or review. On the facts stated, the appellant had participated in earlier proceedings, the record addressed the handover of records and cooperation with the new liquidator, and no material showed fraud, collusion, jurisdictional defect, or any other basis for recall. The application was therefore rejected and the earlier order remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 338 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH AT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777849</link>
      <description>Recall of an appellate order is confined to narrow inherent grounds, including fraud, collusion, patent lack of jurisdiction, a prejudicial mistake of the Court, or non-service of a necessary party, and cannot be used to re-open issues that belong in appeal or review. On the facts stated, the appellant had participated in earlier proceedings, the record addressed the handover of records and cooperation with the new liquidator, and no material showed fraud, collusion, jurisdictional defect, or any other basis for recall. The application was therefore rejected and the earlier order remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>