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.
Clause 4.1 of the 2024 RBI Master Directions and Footnote 14 were held to govern eligibility and independence of an external forensic auditor, and could not be treated as merely prospective because they reflect the requirement that only auditors qualified under relevant statutes conduct such audits. Since the appointed auditor had an admitted continuing consultancy relationship with lender banks, a conflict of interest arose, undermining the bedrock requirement of forensic independence; consequently, the appointment and actions founded on that audit were found prima facie dubitable. Further, the audit report was signed by a non-CA and the firm's CA partners were not registered with ICAI, rendering the appointment untenable, and the gross delay in submission breached RBI timelines, justifying interim protection to prevent grave irreparable harm; the suit was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.