<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (10) TMI 912 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126897</link>
    <description>The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction could appoint an operating agency under section 16(2) to conduct inquiry and collect material on whether a company was sick, and section 27 did not bar appointment of a secured creditor for that role. Regulation 40 permitted assistance from institutions and professionals, so the creditor&#039;s status did not by itself create disqualification or bias. A special investigative audit by independent chartered accountants, selected through a controlled process with scope for objections and material submissions, provided adequate safeguards. No legal prohibition or demonstrated prejudice was shown against the operating agency appointment or the audit directions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 912 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126897</link>
      <description>The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction could appoint an operating agency under section 16(2) to conduct inquiry and collect material on whether a company was sick, and section 27 did not bar appointment of a secured creditor for that role. Regulation 40 permitted assistance from institutions and professionals, so the creditor&#039;s status did not by itself create disqualification or bias. A special investigative audit by independent chartered accountants, selected through a controlled process with scope for objections and material submissions, provided adequate safeguards. No legal prohibition or demonstrated prejudice was shown against the operating agency appointment or the audit directions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>