https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779887 NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding the impugned order merely substituted the investigating agency and did not amount to a recall or review of the earlier NCLT order; the principal order of 11.03.2020 remained effective and the modification did not expand its objective or affect the appellant's rights. The Tribunal found NCLT acted within jurisdiction in appointing different investigators, the alteration being procedural to enable fact-finding; pendency of a writ in the HC by a respondent did not bar independent adjudication, and no interference with the impugned order was warranted. en-us Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779887 NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding the impugned order merely substituted the investigating agency and did not amount to a recall or review of the earlier NCLT order; the principal order of 11.03.2020 remained effective and the modification did not expand its objective or affect the appellant's rights. The Tribunal found NCLT acted within jurisdiction in appointing different investigators, the alteration being procedural to enable fact-finding; pendency of a writ in the HC by a respondent did not bar independent adjudication, and no interference with the impugned order was warranted. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779887