https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93341 The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the 03.01.2024 order merely substituted the investigating agency designated by the earlier 11.03.2020 order and did not constitute a recall or review of that order. The Tribunal found the principal order remained in full effect and the modification did not expand or alter its substantive objective; it only changed the machinery to carry out the previously authorized investigation. The change did not impinge on the appellant's legal rights or exceed NCLT's jurisdiction. Pendency of a writ filed by the respondent in the HC was held not to preclude independent adjudication by the Tribunal or necessitate interference with the impugned order. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:08 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93341 The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the 03.01.2024 order merely substituted the investigating agency designated by the earlier 11.03.2020 order and did not constitute a recall or review of that order. The Tribunal found the principal order remained in full effect and the modification did not expand or alter its substantive objective; it only changed the machinery to carry out the previously authorized investigation. The change did not impinge on the appellant's legal rights or exceed NCLT's jurisdiction. Pendency of a writ filed by the respondent in the HC was held not to preclude independent adjudication by the Tribunal or necessitate interference with the impugned order. Highlights Companies Law Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:08 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93341