9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 25.04.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the Tribunal passed an Order on 05.04.2022 which read as under: Heard Learned Senior Counsel Shri Arvind Pandian, for all the petitioners. Received case laws. Oral submissions, and filing of documents, case law on behalf of the petitioners is concluded. Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No. 45/2023 Page 2 of 5 We have also heard Learned Senior Counsel Shri S. Ravi, on behalf of all the respondents in reply. Oral arguments of Respondents concluded. However, at request opportunity is given to the respondent counsels to file brief note of submissions along with case laws within a week from today. After making submissions, Learned Senior Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r will be borne equally by the parties. Let the matter be listed after a week for orders on appointment of forensic auditor. List the matter on 19.04.2022." 3. On 19.04.2022, the Tribunal passed the following Order: "Ld. Counsel Shri Y. Suryanarayana for the Petitioner, Shri S. Ravi, Ld. Senior Counsel for Respondents present. In terms of our earlier order dated 05.04.2022, we hereby appoint Mr. Sundaramam of Haribakti & Co, for conducting the forensic audit of the "Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd. & 08 Ors." at all its division, as well as head office from 2014 onwards. The applicant as well as the Respondents are directed to place required financial records, statements, vouchers etc. which are required for the audit. The fee an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Haribh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
