2018 (1) TMI 1334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r appointed for the Respondent Company. This praycr is vehemently resisted by the petitioner on grounds that the same can be disposed off with the main petition. Keeping in vicw that the company petition was filed in the year 2010, many of the reliefs prayed for actually become infructuous by the time the main petition is heard and disposed off, thereby causing grave loss and injury to the applicant. This Bench is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be in the interest of justice to dispose off this application which is pending since 2014, moreso in the light of recent steps taken by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 2. The urgency in this case is that the Directors of Respondent no. I Company, have be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f M/S. Vinod Sanjeev Bindal & Co. has signed this company petition on behalf of the Petitioner, while its other founder member Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bindal has signed the Balance Sheets of Respondent no. 1 company as the Statutory Auditor. It is argued that the statutory auditor's duty is to conduct an independent and fair audit of the accounts of the company. They have gone to the extent of getting the balance sheets signed from the petitioners on 28.08.2009 despite the fact that they had ceased to be the Directors of the company on 18.06.2009. This act was in gross violation of the provisions of Section 215 of the Companies Act, 1956, as no balance sheet can be signed by Ex-Directors. The Auditors have therefore conducted an audit in a ne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Bench. 7. A perusal of the previous order sheets reflects that the named Auditor has indeed appeared for the petitioners which lends credence to the Respondent's allegations that they would not be impartial in the discharge of their duties and may act at the instance of the petitioners. In order to scuttle any allegation of fabrication or incorrect certification of the accounts to support the petitioner's case, it would be in the interest of justice to ensure that the element of impartiality remains in fact. Further, as pointed out, the Chartered Accountants sought to be replaced appear to be involved in criminal cases, and therefore propriety demands that tainted persons should be kept away to do away with any scope of fraud.....