9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to show the ground to implead the other Auditor as party Respondent No.12 and the reasons to amend the name of Respondent No.11, they having knowledge of all the facts, Company Petition filed in the year 2015 merely because SFIO is investigating into the matter under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, cannot be a ground to amend the name of the Auditor as Respondent No.11 nor can be a ground to implead another Auditor as Respondent No.12. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 356 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2020 - [Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson, [Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) And [Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial) For Appellant: Ms. Vibha Dutta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nagement of the Respondent Company. Respondent No.1 Company is a joint venture Company with Reebok (Mauritius) Ltd. and is engaged in the business of selling apparels and footwear under the brand name Reebok . The Appellant (Petitioner), whose original equity in the Respondent Company was 20%, was brought down to 6.85% in the year 2003. The dilution of their stake in the company was effected through issuance of Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCD). 6. As per allegations, the Respondents are in complete control of Respondent No.1 Company and are conducting its affairs in a manner which is highly prejudicial to its interest and to those of its major stakeholders. The Appellant (Petitioner) wishes to amend its petition based on the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parate entity was the respondent s Auditor for the financial years ending March 2014 and 2015. It is for the reason that having been informed about the change of name that they wish to amend the name of Respondent No.11 from BSR and Company to BSR Co. LLP , and array BSR and Company as the proposed Respondent No.12. In the light of the above submission, the Appellant wishes to incorporate Para 3.8 in the main petition as under: Respondent No.11 BSR and Co. LLP (earlier known as BSR and Co.) and their affiliates who are liable for professional mis-conduct were inducted in serious acts which are highly unbecoming of a professional. BSR and Co. LLP (earlier known as BSR and Co.) was engaged as Statutory Auditor for Financial years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sheets filed for the F.Y. 202- 13 and 2013-14 respectively. 11. According to the Respondents, the amendment application was filed by the Appellant with the sole intention of causing further delay in the present proceedings in light of the fact that the Compulsorily Convertible Debentures had to be converted into equity shares of the Respondent No.1 Company in February, 2018. 12. It was further submitted that the acts of oppression and mismanagement cannot be averred against the Statutory Auditor of the Company. 13. Learned counsel for the Respondents relied on the decision of this Appellate Tribunal in Shanta Prasad Chakravarty v. M/s. Bochapathar Tea Estate Private Limited 2017 SCC OnLine NCLAT 335 . In the said petition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
