<?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>Alleged fraudulent share transfers and oppression claims: tribunal may order forensic audit of disputed documents on prima facie basis</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95397</link>
    <description>In proceedings concerning alleged fraudulent share transfers and related oppression/mismanagement allegations, the dominant issue was whether the tribunal could direct an independent forensic audit/testing of disputed documents on a prima facie view. Applying s. 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the NCLT Rules, it was held that natural justice requires an effective opportunity to establish one&#039;s case, and Rule 43 (calling for information/evidence) operates independently of Rule 45 (right of appearance/representation). For ordering expert testing, detailed merits analysis is unnecessary at the initial stage; a prima facie satisfaction suffices, with parties retaining the right to controvert the audit report later. The direction did not infringe any legal right, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Alleged fraudulent share transfers and oppression claims: tribunal may order forensic audit of disputed documents on prima facie basis</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95397</link>
      <description>In proceedings concerning alleged fraudulent share transfers and related oppression/mismanagement allegations, the dominant issue was whether the tribunal could direct an independent forensic audit/testing of disputed documents on a prima facie view. Applying s. 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the NCLT Rules, it was held that natural justice requires an effective opportunity to establish one&#039;s case, and Rule 43 (calling for information/evidence) operates independently of Rule 45 (right of appearance/representation). For ordering expert testing, detailed merits analysis is unnecessary at the initial stage; a prima facie satisfaction suffices, with parties retaining the right to controvert the audit report later. The direction did not infringe any legal right, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>