https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290013 The court held that the impugned order did not meet the requirements of Section 212 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013, as it failed to demonstrate the Central Government's opinion on the necessity of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, consequential communication, and notice. The matter was remitted to the 1st respondent for reconsideration based on the Registrar of Companies' report within three weeks. The court clarified that it did not assess the merits and ordered a fresh consideration in line with Section 212. en-us Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Sep 2020 10:45:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290013 The court held that the impugned order did not meet the requirements of Section 212 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013, as it failed to demonstrate the Central Government's opinion on the necessity of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, consequential communication, and notice. The matter was remitted to the 1st respondent for reconsideration based on the Registrar of Companies' report within three weeks. The court clarified that it did not assess the merits and ordered a fresh consideration in line with Section 212. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290013