<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1161 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790092</link>
    <description>Recall jurisdiction is limited to patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, mistake of the court causing prejudice, or non-service of a necessary party. Grounds already considered in the earlier order did not satisfy any recognised basis for recall, and the application was in substance an impermissible review where appeal was the proper remedy. The recall application was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1161 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790092</link>
      <description>Recall jurisdiction is limited to patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, mistake of the court causing prejudice, or non-service of a necessary party. Grounds already considered in the earlier order did not satisfy any recognised basis for recall, and the application was in substance an impermissible review where appeal was the proper remedy. The recall application was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>