Forensic audit powers under Rule 43 allow tribunals to seek expert examination of disputed records on their own motion.

Rule 43 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 permits the Tribunal to call for further information or evidence on its own motion, so an independent forensic audit of disputed company records can be directed even without a formal application. Rule 43(3), which allows a party to seek forensic examination in cases of alleged forgery, does not limit that broader power. Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 and related civil procedure principles support examination of documents to test their authenticity in aid of justice. Prima facie satisfaction was sufficient at the stage of ordering the audit, and the resulting report remained open to challenge. Fixing reasonable auditor remuneration was also within the Tribunal's powers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could invoke Rule 43 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, on its own motion to direct an independent forensic audit of disputed company records and fix the auditor's fee, despite the absence of a formal application, and whether such direction was liable to be interfered with in appeal.

Analysis: Rule 43 confers power on the Bench to call for further information or evidence before passing orders, and its text does not make the exercise of that power dependent on a party's application. The provision is aimed at enabling effective adjudication where allegations of forgery, fabrication, or disputed financial records require scientific examination. Rule 43(3), which permits a party to move an application for forensic examination in cases of alleged forgery, does not curtail the Tribunal's broader authority under Rule 43(1) and (2). The procedural framework under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the corresponding civil procedure principles also support the Tribunal's ability to seek documents and test their authenticity in aid of justice. The Tribunal's prima facie satisfaction at the stage of directing examination of disputed records was sufficient, since the report would still be subject to challenge and rebuttal in the proceedings. The fixation of reasonable remuneration for the expert auditor was also within the Tribunal's inherent powers, applying the principle of quid pro quo.

Conclusion: The direction for appointment of an independent auditor and forensic examination was valid, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

---