2023 (5) TMI 870 - AT - Corporate Laws

Appointment of Auditor for Forensic Audit - One partner of the firm, Haribhakti & Co. in his individual capacity - Locus of the another partner of the firm to file the final Report of the Forensic Audit who had not been appointed for this purpose - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that both the parties filed objections to the Draft Report but no objection is filed to the final Report though time was granted by the Learned Tribunal for that purpose by the Impugned Order dated 25.04.2023 rather the present Appeal has been filed by the Petitioners in the main Petition raising the issue of the locus of Mr. Mitesh Parekh to file the final Report of the Forensic Audit who had not been appointed for this purpose by the Tribunal vide its Order dated 19.04.2022.

Counsel for the Respondent has though argued that the Appellant is unnecessarily raising this issue and has referred to some emails but at this stage we are not going into the merits of the case because the matter is yet to be decided by the Learned Tribunal, who may take into consideration the objections of the Appellant raised before this Tribunal by way of this Appeal. Therefore, it would be just and expedient if a direction is issued to the Tribunal, seized of the matter, to consider the objections of the Appellant, including the final Report of the Forensic Audit having been prepared by Mr. Mitesh Parekh instead of Mr. Sundararaman who was not categorically appointed and also all the contentions of the Respondents in this regard as it has been argued by the Respondent that the appointment of Mr. Sundararaman of Haribhakti & Co. was an employee of that Company and therefore the Report has rightly been prepared by Mr. Mitesh Parekh who is also a part of Haribhakti & Company.

The present Appeal is therefore disposed of with a direction to the Learned Tribunal, seized of CP No.203/241/HDB/2020, to take into consideration the objections of the Appellant including the objection to the final Report of Forensic Audit submitted by Mr. Mitesh Parekh who was not so allegedly appointed vide Order dated 19.04.2022 as according to the Appellant Mr. Sundararaman was appointed in his individual capacity though he was working with M/s. Haribhakti & Co. Chartered Accountants.