Regardng Mepco industries 2009 main thing was hld dt "mere chnge of opinion of same set of facts doesn't constiute mistke apparnt 4m rcrd."
pleas go in detail regardng "MEPCO CASE".
VINCAST ENGINEERING(2006)-
SAURASHTRA KUCH STOCK EXCHNGE (2008) r d bases on vch i answrd.
in last attempt it was DT paper with full amendments. n dis time it was IDT...this time DT paper was quite easy.... m expecting 60+, all case law asked were very easy and amendments were also very straight forward
HELLO RAJAT , its clearly written in v.g sir book that supreme court judgement , later amendment in law will make available grounds for invoking 154 section. and also mepco case has different facts from what was asked in question.
HELLO BHUVAN , CHANGE OF OPINION IS CONSIDERED FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 147 / 263 AND NOT SECTION 154 WHICH TALKS ABOUT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. AS PER V.G SIR RECORD WILL INCLUDE A SUBSEQUENT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT . ALSO A LATER AMENDMENT FORMS PART OF RECORD. 154 CAN BE INVOKED IF 4 YEARS FROM DATE OF ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED HAVE NOT PASSED.