TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants to file an appropriate repeat application in this regard at the appropriate stage. Since the appellant has the liberty to pray for the forensic audit at the appropriate stage, therefore, such a prayer can be made by the appellant again along with the prayer for forensic audit because the said prayer has not been examined by the Company Law Board and Company Law Board has observed that interim relief cannot be sought by the appellant in piecemeal. The issues which the appellant is raising before this Court are factual issues and the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law requiring consideration under Section 10-F of the Companies Act. - Misc. Company Appeal No.46/2014 - - - Dated:- 14-1-2015 - HON. SH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants had filed C.A. No.225/2014 seeking modification of the order dated 25.4.2014 and appointment of an administrator and/or special officer and/or an independent committee of management to carry out the business and manage the affairs of the respondent No.1 Company and also permit the sale of properties of the company after necessary audit and to appoint the special auditor. C.A. No.226/2014 was filed by the appellants with a prayer to enlarge the role of the Observer-cum-Facilitator empowering him not only to supervise the sale but also to disburse the sale proceeds to discharge the liabilities, after due forensic audit, and to stay the sale of cotton portfolio and rights issue. Both these applications have been rejected by the Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gulate affairs of the company in accordance with articles of association, need not be interfered in appeal. [See: [2008] 144 Comp Cas 619 (Mad), Palanisamy and another Vs. Milka Nutrients P. Ltd. and others]. Thus this appeal needs to be examined in the light of the limited scope of appeal. 7. The Company Law Board has rejected C.A. No.225/2014 noting that the Observer-cum-facilitator is entitled to ensure that the sale proceeds received from the sale of the Company assets are appropriated towards discharge of the genuine liability of the respondent No.1 Company. Since the Observer-cum-facilitator is a retired Hon'ble Judge of this Court, therefore, the said observation made by the Company Law Board cannot be doubted. In respect of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
