Tribunal Upholds Appointment of Statutory Auditor Under Companies Act 2013

The Tribunal held that the appointment of the Statutory Auditor, M/s. Shah & Bhatt, was legal as per the procedure under Section 139(8) of the Companies Act, 2013. It found the audit conducted by the new Auditor valid, rejecting claims of hasty completion. The interpretation of Section 139(8) clarified the authority of the Board of Directors in recommending auditors. The Tribunal overturned the direction for re-audit, stating it lacked evidence of errors. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appointment of the Statutory Auditor.
2. Validity of the audit conducted by the newly appointed Auditor.
3. Interpretation of Section 139(8) of the Companies Act, 2013.
4. Direction for re-audit of the accounts by the NCLT.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appointment of the Statutory Auditor:
The Respondent (original Petitioner) challenged the appointment of the Statutory Auditor M/s Shah & Bhatt, CA, claiming it was bad in law and sought to restrain them from auditing. The NCLT examined the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors on 01.11.2017 and the EOGM on 07.12.2017. It was noted that the Board of Directors recommended the new Auditor's name, which was approved in the EOGM. The NCLT concluded that the procedure under Section 139(8) was followed correctly, and there was no illegality in appointing M/s. Shah & Bhatt as the new Auditors.

2. Validity of the audit conducted by the newly appointed Auditor:
The Respondent disputed how the new Auditor could finalize the accounts for the Financial Year 2016-17 in one day after their appointment was approved on 07.12.2017. The NCLT found it implausible that the audit of the entire year could be completed within a few hours on the same day. The Appellants argued that the new Auditor had been working on the audit since their appointment on 01.11.2017, subject to the approval of the general body, and thus there was no error in the auditing process.

3. Interpretation of Section 139(8) of the Companies Act, 2013:
The NCLT interpreted Section 139(8) to mean that the Board of Directors could only recommend the name of the Auditor, and the actual appointment would be done by the general body. The Appellants contended that the Board of Directors had the authority to fill the casual vacancy by appointing the Auditor, which would then be subject to approval by the general body. The Tribunal clarified that the Board of Directors had the power to fill the vacancy within 30 days, and such appointment needed to be approved by the general body within three months.

4. Direction for re-audit of the accounts by the NCLT:
The NCLT directed a re-audit of the accounts, doubting the correctness of the audit conducted by M/s. Shah & Bhatt. The Appellants argued that without any prima facie evidence showing errors or improper conduct in the audit, the direction for re-audit was unwarranted. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellants, stating that the re-audit could not be directed based on mere surmises without material evidence indicating flaws in the initial audit.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found substance in the Appellants' submissions and quashed the NCLT's order directing re-audit. The Tribunal held that the audit conducted by M/s. Shah & Bhatt was valid and that the Respondent could question the audit during the final hearing of the Company Petition. The accounts of subsequent Financial Years could be settled but would remain subject to the decision of the Company Petition. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. No costs were awarded.

---