AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Heard both the sides. The original appellant seeks review of order passed by this Tribunal on December 11, 2019.
Upon hearing both sides, it appears that a clerical mistake has crept in paragraph No. 5. In first sentence, we recorded “The appellant further
submitted that GTL made a valuation of its shares ….†The record would show that the acquirer and not GTL which got the said valuation done. In
the circumstances, the necessary correction of substituting “GTL†to “acquirer†be made in the order.
Similarly, in paragraph No. 7, we observed that “Thereafter though the appellants sought to withdraw the open offer which was finally dismissed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ….â€, instead of the term appellant the term acquirer was required to be used. In the circumstances, necessary
correction of substituting the term “appellant†by the term “acquirer†be carried out.
As regards the other submissions of the applicant, upon hearing both the sides, we do not find any error on the face of the record liable to be
corrected. The application to that extent is, therefore, dismissed.
Misc. Application is disposed of on above terms with no order as to costs.