https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784081 The tribunal found that the appellant could not disown the appeal or later allege that counsel acted without instructions, because the memorandum of appeal, supporting affidavits and vakalatnama bore the appellant's signature and there was no contemporaneous complaint or reliable material. The denial of instructions was treated as vague and unsupported, while no professional misconduct by the advocates was established. The allegation was viewed as an attempt to falsely implicate counsel after the appeal had already been dismissed for failure to cure defects under Rule 26(3) and Rule 26(4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The challenge to the dismissal order was rejected and the dismissal was affirmed. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784081 The tribunal found that the appellant could not disown the appeal or later allege that counsel acted without instructions, because the memorandum of appeal, supporting affidavits and vakalatnama bore the appellant's signature and there was no contemporaneous complaint or reliable material. The denial of instructions was treated as vague and unsupported, while no professional misconduct by the advocates was established. The allegation was viewed as an attempt to falsely implicate counsel after the appeal had already been dismissed for failure to cure defects under Rule 26(3) and Rule 26(4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The challenge to the dismissal order was rejected and the dismissal was affirmed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784081