https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790376 A substantially identical second application seeking return of premises in liquidation was held barred by res judicata and issue estoppel because the earlier order had not reserved liberty to renew the same challenge. The Court read the prior order as permitting only consideration of alternate premises, not reopening of the dispute. On the merits, the Liquidator's continued possession was found justified because liquidation was ongoing, the premises were still needed for storage of records and as an office address, and the Applicant itself had offered alternate premises. The Court also held that summary jurisdiction under Section 457 could not be used to convert the arrangement into a leave-and-licence order or to compel digitisation and investigation reliefs. The application failed with costs. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:52:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790376 A substantially identical second application seeking return of premises in liquidation was held barred by res judicata and issue estoppel because the earlier order had not reserved liberty to renew the same challenge. The Court read the prior order as permitting only consideration of alternate premises, not reopening of the dispute. On the merits, the Liquidator's continued possession was found justified because liquidation was ongoing, the premises were still needed for storage of records and as an office address, and the Applicant itself had offered alternate premises. The Court also held that summary jurisdiction under Section 457 could not be used to convert the arrangement into a leave-and-licence order or to compel digitisation and investigation reliefs. The application failed with costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790376