Parties to Appoint Auditors for Company Valuation by 31.03.2021; Costs to be Shared Equally, Report Due in Six Weeks.

The SC directed the parties to jointly appoint two Auditors, M/s Khimji Kunverji & Co. and M/s Ernst & Young Merchant Banking Services LLP, for company valuation. Both parties agreed on a valuation cutoff date of 31.03.2021. They were instructed to submit relevant materials to the Auditors, who were to consider these and submit a joint report within six weeks. The SC ruled that the valuation expenses would be equally shared by both parties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appointment of Auditors for joint assessment of company value.
2. Selection of cutoff date for valuation.
3. Submission of material for valuation.
4. Instructions to Auditors for assessment process.
5. Allocation of expenses for Auditors.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court directed both parties to jointly assess the value of the company by appointing two Auditors. Each party was required to provide a list of three Auditors, but one party only submitted one name. Consequently, the Court appointed M/s Khimji Kunverji & Co. and M/s Ernst & Young Merchant Banking Services LLP for the valuation process.

2. Both parties unanimously agreed that the cutoff date for the valuation should be 31.03.2021. This agreement was crucial in determining the financial status of the company for the assessment.

3. To facilitate the valuation process, both parties were instructed to submit material related to their contributions towards the company's growth. This material was to be presented to the Auditors to aid them in expediting the valuation process effectively.

4. The Auditors were given specific directions to allow both parties to present their cases and consider the submitted material before assessing the company's value. They were required to submit a joint report to the Court within six weeks, outlining their assessment based on the provided information.

5. The Court ruled that the expenses incurred by the Auditors during the valuation process would be shared equally by both parties. This decision ensured a fair distribution of financial responsibility for the assessment.

This detailed analysis of the Supreme Court judgment highlights the key issues addressed in the case, including the appointment of Auditors, selection of the cutoff date for valuation, submission of material for assessment, instructions to Auditors for the valuation process, and the allocation of expenses between the parties.

---