TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proceedings of IA(C/Act)/182/KOB/2023, as preferred in IA(C/Act)/29/KOB/2020 in TCP/21/KOB/2019, challenges the impugned order that has been passed on 03.01.2024, by virtue of which the consequential effect had been that the earlier order that has been passed on 11.03.2020, directing the investigation to be carried by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, that was being sought to be modified. While considering the modification application, the Tribunal has passed an order directing thereby that the Central Government, to appoint an inspector to investigate the affairs of M/s. Bhagyodayam Company (instead of the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer). The Tribunal further directed that, so far as the other part of the order dated 11.03.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....removing the petitioners of the Company Petition from their membership, the sale of the properties, and also an action of an appointment of the interim administrator to manage the affairs of the company for a period of six months. The direction issued by an order passed on 28.08.2018 was to conduct the election of Board of Directors of company within six months. 4. For the purposes to carry out the direction of the order dated 28.08.2018, a retired High Court Judge was appointed as an administrator, who was expected to carry out the functions as contained in the order dated 28.08.2018. After the assumption of office, as the administrator, the administrator had preferred an interlocutory application IA No.29/2020 before the NCLT Bench of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 32 of the NCLT Rules, had modified the order of 11.03.2020, whereby the directions were issued for transfer of investigation to be made by the Central Government to any inspector to investigate it into the affairs of the Appellant instead of the same being conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer as it was directed by the earlier order of 11.03.2020. 7. The question would be that, whether such type of order, which has only the effect of modifying the earlier order of 11.03.2020, with the change of the investigating officer or an investigating agency, who was expected to conduct the investigation, as it was recommended by the administrator, who was appointed by the Learned NCLT. The said order cannot be said to be an order in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Fraud Investigation Officer, its only the investigating agency, which was being altered by the modification made by the impugned order of 03.01.2024. Since the impugned order of 03.01.2024 in itself does not have any independent existence in itself, as it has to be read only in modification to the earlier order of 11.03.2020, which has attained finality. 8. The Appellant would be estopped to put a challenge to the impugned order of 03.01.2024 on the ground that, the order does not takes the shape of a review or a recall, which is not satisfied as none of the elements of review or recall is existing in the impugned order of 03.01.2024, because of non-alteration of the object ordered to be carried by earlier order, by the order of 03.01.....