9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 237, 247, 397, 398 read with Sections 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and other provisions) before the Company Law Board being Company Petition No. 126(ND)2015. 2. The matter was subsequently transferred before the National Company Law Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short), New Delhi Bench, New Delhi in terms of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013. 3. A Company Application No. 97 of 2016 was filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner praying for amendment of the original petition. As per averments, the Appellant/ Petitioner wishes to elucidate certain facts which have already been averred in the main petition against the Statutory Auditors of the Respondent Company ('Reebok India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial statement for the years 2007-15. 7. The basic allegation being made by the Appellant (Petitioner) while praying for amendment is that there have been various holes in the Auditing System which has given rise to a massive and systematic fraud of at least Rs. 1500 crores, if not Rs. 8700 crores, in the form of siphoning off the funds based on fraudulent transactions, which could not have gone unnoticed by the auditors. The Appellant (Petitioner) has submitted that pursuant to the report of the SFIO, which indicts the auditors in preparing the profit and loss statements, their connivance with the Directors of the respondent company has clearly emerged. Though the Appellant (Petitioner) has impleaded the Auditors in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petition." 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that material on record shows that the commission of fraud and siphoning of funds and role of Auditors highlighted by SFIO clearly bringing out the active role of the auditors in perpetuating fraud and wide scale mismanagement and diversion of funds of the company. It is submitted that the amendment sought of elucidating the grounds had already been taken in the petition. 9. SFIO investigation report relates to F.Y. 2011 to 2012. Diversion of business and illegal repatriation of company money etc. is still continuing for which the Appellant Company has specifically prayed relief of appointment of independent auditor since the year 2010 to 2015, calling for an investigation into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned and they are not necessary parties in the petition. The Tribunal has, after hearing the parties, deleted the original Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 from the array of parties. The appeal was filed against the said decision by the Petitioner- 'Shanta Prasad Chakravarty', which was dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also refused to interfere with the impugned order passed by this Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 16th July, 2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 675 of 2018- "Shanta Prasad Chakravarty & Ors. v. M/s. Bochapathar Tea Estate Private Limited & Ors." 14. In the present case, the Appellant having failed to show the ground to implead the other Auditor as party Respondent No.12 and the reasons to amend the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
