Tribunal grants interim relief in company petition, appoints auditor, orders account rendering.

The Tribunal found the company petition maintainable, recognizing the petitioner's entitlement to shares as the legal representative of her deceased father. The petitioner was granted interim relief, including the appointment of an independent auditor to investigate the management and affairs of the company. The Tribunal directed the respondent directors to render accounts and ordered both parties to submit names of independent auditors within 15 days, with the Tribunal reserving the right to appoint an auditor if necessary. Each party was to bear its own costs, and the interim order would not impact the main company petition or any pending civil suits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the company petition.
2. Petitioner's locus standi and share qualification under section 399 of the Companies Act.
3. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
4. Striking off the company's name by the Registrar of Companies.
5. Interim relief and appointment of an independent auditor.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Company Petition:
The respondents argued that the company petition is not maintainable on the grounds that the petitioner is not a shareholder of the respondent No. 1 company and that there is a pending partition suit regarding the estate of the petitioner's deceased father. The petitioner countered by asserting entitlement to 2576 equity shares (16.36% of the paid-up share capital) as the successor-in-interest of her late father, who held 10,304 equity shares. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court case of World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Margarat T. Desor, which established that legal representatives of deceased members listed in the register of members can petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. The Tribunal found the petition maintainable, noting that the issue of maintainability had been previously addressed in an order dated 21.11.2014, which had not been appealed.

2. Petitioner's Locus Standi and Share Qualification:
The respondents contended that the petitioner did not have the requisite share qualification under section 399 of the Companies Act, as she did not hold any shares in her name. The petitioner argued that her entitlement to shares as a legal representative of her deceased father met the requirements of section 399, supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with the petitioner, recognizing her as having the necessary share qualification based on her entitlement to her father's shares.

3. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to fulfill their duties under the Companies Act, including filing necessary financial documents, leading to the striking off of the company's name. The petitioner claimed that the respondents acted collusively to siphon off company assets and sought an investigation into these allegations. The Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of these allegations and the need for an independent auditor to investigate the management and affairs of the company.

4. Striking Off the Company's Name by the Registrar of Companies:
The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable because the company's name had been struck off. The Tribunal noted that the petition was filed before the company's name was struck off and that the striking off was indicative of the alleged mismanagement. The Tribunal held that the petition remained valid as it was filed when the company was still in existence and that directors could still be held individually responsible.

5. Interim Relief and Appointment of an Independent Auditor:
The petitioner sought interim relief, including the appointment of an independent auditor to investigate the dealings and transactions of the respondent directors. The Tribunal allowed the interim application, directing the respondent directors to render accounts from the date of filing the company petition until the striking off of the company. The Tribunal also ordered the appointment of an independent auditor to investigate the management and affairs of the company, with both parties required to submit three names of independent auditors within 15 days. If the parties failed to do so, the Tribunal would appoint an auditor itself.

Order:
The Tribunal allowed I.A. No. 33/2016, directing the respondent directors to render accounts and appointing an independent auditor to investigate the management and affairs of the company. This interim order was made to ensure proper accounting and protection of the company's assets and would not affect the main company petition or any pending civil suits. Each party was to bear its own costs.

---