9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Mr. Yogender, Advocates Oral Judgment Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for contesting respondents. Perused Impugned order. 2. It appears that the Company Petition is pending between the parties since 2010. Counsel for appellant submits that there were various applications filed in the petition but CA 142/14 was picked up out of turn and decided. It appears that the parties are connected with different companies and disputes have arisen between them relating to the different companies and litigations are pending. In the present matter it appears that the NCLT was moved by Respondents vide CA 11/18 because of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 and to take benefit of the Scheme the question of getting the accounts au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n one of the disputes related to the removal of the auditor and other dispute was regarding appointment of auditor made by the respondents. It is argued by counsel for appellant that the question of the Constitution of Board and shareholding were also in dispute and in such situation the learned NCLT could not have, in between appointed what is stated to be independent auditor. The learned counsel for appellants submits that the NCLT should have decided the Company Petition itself expeditiously. The learned counsel for contesting respondents submits that the question of shareholding is not in dispute in the Company Petition. I am not entering into these fields. 4. The learned NCLT has discussed rival allegations of the parties regarding au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made statements as above. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant is further submitting that the concerned scheme has been extended till 30th April, 2018 and protection has been given to the Directors till then. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has tendered across the bar copy of the order in the Company Petition dated 26th March, 2018 (for the purpose of identification the document is marked as 'X'). It shows that after the present impugned order dated 19th January, 2018 was passed, the auditors appointed have submitted audit report and schedule of AGM had been given. The appellants appear to have taken up the issue relating to the auditor's report in the NCLT in view of which order dated 26th March, 2018 has now been passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 03.05.2018." 9. Counsel for both sides say that there is typing error in last Para of the order regarding activation. I need not enter into that part. Fact remains that in view of these subsequent developments in the litigation, when the auditors appointed have taken steps in terms of the impugned order dated 19th January, 2018 and the steps taken by them have further been questioned before the Principle Bench of NCLT, Delhi and the learned NCLT is seized with the further developments which have taken place in this prolonged litigation, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to interfere in the impugned order and deal with the question whether or not at all the independent auditor should or should not have been appointed. I do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
