https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389976 The court found prima facie evidence of fund diversion by Respondent No. 1, supporting the appellants' claims. The interim orders restraining property transfer were reinstated due to substantial material indicating fund diversion. An audit of Respondent No. 1's accounts was ordered to trace the money trail. The court emphasized the need to protect investors' interests under relevant sections of the Companies Act, 2013. Respondent No. 2's claimed innocence was doubted, and the court directed maintenance of the status quo pending audit completion to prevent further complications. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:27:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389976 The court found prima facie evidence of fund diversion by Respondent No. 1, supporting the appellants' claims. The interim orders restraining property transfer were reinstated due to substantial material indicating fund diversion. An audit of Respondent No. 1's accounts was ordered to trace the money trail. The court emphasized the need to protect investors' interests under relevant sections of the Companies Act, 2013. Respondent No. 2's claimed innocence was doubted, and the court directed maintenance of the status quo pending audit completion to prevent further complications. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389976