<?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>2026 (1) TMI 285 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784529</link>
    <description>A forensic audit may be ordered as an interim aid in oppression and mismanagement proceedings where pleadings disclose serious allegations of siphoning of funds, irregular accounting, and related financial improprieties. The audit was treated as a tool to ascertain the truth and enable fair adjudication of the company petition, falling within the NCLT&#039;s discretionary power under Section 242(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. On appeal, interference with such a discretionary order is not warranted merely because another view is possible; it is justified only if the discretion is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled principles. The direction for forensic audit was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:03:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 285 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784529</link>
      <description>A forensic audit may be ordered as an interim aid in oppression and mismanagement proceedings where pleadings disclose serious allegations of siphoning of funds, irregular accounting, and related financial improprieties. The audit was treated as a tool to ascertain the truth and enable fair adjudication of the company petition, falling within the NCLT&#039;s discretionary power under Section 242(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. On appeal, interference with such a discretionary order is not warranted merely because another view is possible; it is justified only if the discretion is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled principles. The direction for forensic audit was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>