9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 870 - AT - Companies LawAppointment 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.
Issues involved: Appointment of forensic auditor for conducting a forensic audit of company's accounts, objections to final forensic audit report, locus of the individual who prepared the final report.
Appointment of Forensic Auditor: The Tribunal passed an order directing the appointment of an independent auditor for conducting a forensic audit of the company's accounts in both Wardha and Hyderabad. The auditors were required to submit the report within 30 days, and the fees and expenses were to be shared equally by both parties. Mr. Sundaraman of Haribakti & Co. was appointed to conduct the forensic audit, and both parties were directed to provide the necessary financial records for the audit. Objections to Final Forensic Audit Report: Both parties filed objections to the draft report of the forensic audit, but no objection was filed to the final report prepared by Mr. Mitesh Parekh of Haribhakti & Co. Chartered Accountant. The issue raised in the appeal was regarding the locus of Mr. Parekh to file the final report, as he was not specifically appointed for this purpose by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the main Tribunal to consider the objections raised by the appellant and the contentions of the respondent regarding the appointment and preparation of the final report. Disposition of the Appeal: The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the main Tribunal to consider the objections raised by the appellant, including the objection to the final report prepared by Mr. Parekh. The Tribunal was instructed to also take into account the respondent's contentions while deciding the main company petition. The appeal was concluded with these observations.
|
