Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
In proceedings concerning alleged fraudulent share transfers and related oppression/mismanagement allegations, the dominant issue was whether the tribunal could direct an independent forensic audit/testing of disputed documents on a prima facie view. Applying s. 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the NCLT Rules, it was held that natural justice requires an effective opportunity to establish one's case, and Rule 43 (calling for information/evidence) operates independently of Rule 45 (right of appearance/representation). For ordering expert testing, detailed merits analysis is unnecessary at the initial stage; a prima facie satisfaction suffices, with parties retaining the right to controvert the audit report later. The direction did not infringe any legal right, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.