Court limits Regional Director's jurisdiction on auditor removal applications under Section 140(1) Companies Act, 2013

The court found the Regional Director's jurisdiction limited to accepting or rejecting applications for the removal of a statutory auditor under Section 140(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The court directed the Regional Director to consider the application and issue a final order within four weeks, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the need for a timely resolution in auditor removal matters. The judgment clarified legal aspects and provided specific directives for the parties involved to proceed accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impugning an order recalling the removal of a statutory auditor.
2. Jurisdiction of the Regional Director (RD) under Section 140(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Challenge to the maintainability of the application based on limitation under Rule 7 of the Companies (Audit & Auditors) Rules, 2014.

Impugning the Order:
The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, challenged an order recalling his removal as a statutory auditor. The order was passed by the Regional Director (RD) based on an application by the respondent seeking permission for the removal. The petitioner argued that the original order was a consent order and could not be recalled. However, the court found the RD's jurisdiction limited to accepting or rejecting the application for removal under Section 140(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The court noted that the original order did not resolve the dispute and directed the RD to consider the application and pass a final order within four weeks.

Jurisdiction of the Regional Director:
The court emphasized that the RD, as a delegate of the Central Government, has a restricted jurisdiction concerning the removal of an auditor before the term's expiry. The RD's role is to consider applications for permission to remove an auditor, as per the Companies Act, 2013. The court upheld the RD's decision to proceed with the respondent's application for the petitioner's removal and directed a timely final order.

Challenge Based on Limitation:
The petitioner raised a challenge regarding the application's maintainability due to a perceived delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the application for removal was not submitted within the specified timeframe under Rule 7 of the Companies (Audit & Auditors) Rules, 2014. Despite this contention, the court directed the respondent to file a fresh application if necessary, allowing for a new General Body meeting for the petitioner's potential removal, subject to Central Government approval.

In conclusion, the court addressed the issues raised by the petitioner comprehensively, emphasizing the limited scope of the RD's jurisdiction, the importance of adhering to statutory timelines, and the need for a timely resolution in matters of auditor removal. The judgment provided clarity on the legal aspects involved and offered specific directives for the parties involved to proceed in accordance with the law.

---