NCLAT upholds forensic audit order in oppression case after appellant fails to file reply affidavit

NCLAT upheld NCLT's interim order directing forensic audit in oppression and mismanagement case. Appellant failed to file reply affidavit or supporting documents before NCLT, leaving only petitioner's submissions regarding fund siphoning, statutory auditor appointment lapses, improper books maintenance, and non-compliance with statutory requirements. NCLAT held forensic audit doesn't determine parties' rights but assists tribunal in adjudicating serious allegations of financial irregularities and non-disclosure of related party transactions. Appeal dismissed as interim order justified given gravity of alleged lapses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged breach of shareholders' agreement and exclusivity agreement.
2. Denial of inspection of books of accounts and statutory compliance failures.
3. Necessity and reasoning behind the direction for forensic audit.

Summary:

1. Alleged Breach of Shareholders' Agreement and Exclusivity Agreement:
The appellant argued that Respondent No.1 breached the shareholders' agreement and exclusivity agreement by engaging in rival competitive business, which harmed the Joint Venture's interests. The appellant claimed that despite giving Respondent No.1 access to their books of accounts, an interim order was passed without proper reasoning, directing an independent forensic audit into the appellant company's affairs.

2. Denial of Inspection of Books of Accounts and Statutory Compliance Failures:
Respondent No.1 filed a company petition for Oppression and Mismanagement, alleging that the appellant denied inspection of books of accounts, failed to call for an EOGM, purchased a loan without consent, and did not comply with statutory requirements. The appellant contended that disputes arose regarding the exclusivity agreement and insufficient investment by Respondent No.1, leading to communications highlighting the violations.

3. Necessity and Reasoning Behind the Direction for Forensic Audit:
The appellant argued that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and cited precedents emphasizing the need for judicial orders to be supported by reasons. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not file a reply affidavit or supporting documents before the NCLT, which led to the interim order based on the petitioner's averments. The Tribunal held that forensic audit was necessary given the allegations of siphoning funds, statutory violations, and non-compliance in financial statements. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the NCLT's order and dismissed the appeal, stating that the forensic audit would aid in adjudicating the petition without determining the parties' rights and liabilities.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the interim order for a forensic audit was upheld to ensure proper adjudication of the issues raised in the petition. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of forensic audit in cases involving serious financial and statutory compliance allegations.

---