TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not mentioned as to how and when the Respondents got the knowledge that Mr. Naveen Kishore has indulged in fraudulent sale transactions. Further, in support of said allegations the Respondents have not place any document on record. There is nothing in the order to justify the directions for conducting forensic audit of accounts of the Company that too for more than 15 years. The Adjudicating Authority must record reasons in support of conclusions. However, in the Impugned Order no reasons are mentioned for the said directions. The order is cryptic and non-speaking; therefore, it cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 296 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2021 - [Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re purchased 50 immovable properties in his name and his wife s name by utilizing the working capital and funds of the Appellant Company. Mr. Naveen Kishore has been operating the finances of the Appellant Company in an arbitrary and whimsical manner and has siphoned off Crores of Rupees belonging to the Appellant Company without accounting for the same. The same was done with the active aid and connivance of the auditors of the Company. Therefore, it was requested that an advocate-Commissioner be appointed to conduct a forensic audit of the Appellant Company by taking assistance of an Auditor for the check period 31.03.2004 till date. 3. The Application was resisted by Mr. Naveen Kishore on the ground that there is no illegal transfer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Order dated 16.09.2019, which reads as under: - Order The interim application be and the same is allowed on contest. The parties are directed to suggest the name of an auditor/a firm of auditor within two weeks for conducting forensic audit of the company. There is however, no need for appointment of an advocate commissioner. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant Company has filed this Appeal. 6. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no prima facie finding of oppression or mismanagement as required under Section 242 (4) and 241/242 of the Companies Act. The Impugned Order is without reasoning or finding of fact and in fact, contains a one-line order directing that forensic audit be condu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have also filed an Application with the prayer to examine the signature of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the letter of resignation for verification of signature. The said application has been rejected by the Tribunal and the order has been affirmed by this Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Mr. Naveen Kishore has forged the signature on share transfer deed and resignation letter. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant also submits that the Respondent No. 2 filed an FIR against Naveen Kishore alleging forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust. However, after investigation, the investigating agency found the said allegations to be false. Therefore, a closer report was filed. The Respondent No. 2 has also fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties, we have considered their rival submissions and examined the record. 12. In the application, there is a vague allegation of fabricating, share transfer deeds and the resignation letter. In the application, it is not mentioned that in what manner Mr. Naveen Kishore siphoned off the money from the Appellant Company and when has he purchased 50 properties in the name of his family members out of the funds of the Company. Even in the application it is not mentioned as to how and when the Respondents got the knowledge that Mr. Naveen Kishore has indulged in fraudulent sale transactions. Further, in support of said allegations the Respondents have not place any document on record. 13. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the Case of Kranti A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
