https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290647 The Company Law Board (CLB) dismissed the application, ruling that it lacks jurisdiction to stay proceedings under Section 224(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The CLB emphasized that its inherent powers under Regulation 44 cannot override specific statutory provisions and that the power to appoint auditors under Section 224(3) rests solely with the Regional Director. The CLB highlighted that parties have alternative legal remedies available and that issues regarding the validity and timing of the application under Section 224(3) should be determined by the third respondent. en-us Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Oct 2020 18:41:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290647 The Company Law Board (CLB) dismissed the application, ruling that it lacks jurisdiction to stay proceedings under Section 224(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The CLB emphasized that its inherent powers under Regulation 44 cannot override specific statutory provisions and that the power to appoint auditors under Section 224(3) rests solely with the Regional Director. The CLB highlighted that parties have alternative legal remedies available and that issues regarding the validity and timing of the application under Section 224(3) should be determined by the third respondent. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290647