https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92760 The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal, holding that the NCLT possessed jurisdiction under Section 242(4) to pass interim orders regulating the company's affairs, but such orders must be predicated on cogent circumstances to secure substantial justice. The Tribunal upheld the NCLT's refusal to direct examination of time-barred (2015) records, criticised the impugned directive to appoint a forensic auditor to probe six years without adequate supporting material, and found the Respondent's claim of lack of access to financial statements frivolous. No finding of siphoning of funds, denial of information or lack of probity was made, and no winding-up or forensic mandate beyond permissible limitation was sustained. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:50 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92760 The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal, holding that the NCLT possessed jurisdiction under Section 242(4) to pass interim orders regulating the company's affairs, but such orders must be predicated on cogent circumstances to secure substantial justice. The Tribunal upheld the NCLT's refusal to direct examination of time-barred (2015) records, criticised the impugned directive to appoint a forensic auditor to probe six years without adequate supporting material, and found the Respondent's claim of lack of access to financial statements frivolous. No finding of siphoning of funds, denial of information or lack of probity was made, and no winding-up or forensic mandate beyond permissible limitation was sustained. Highlights Companies Law Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:50 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92760