2025 (2) TMI 1967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....For the Respondent : Mr. Y Suryanarayana, Advocate for R2 ORDER Heard the Ld. counsels for the parties. The proceedings by way of Company Petition No. 69/241/HDB/2023 stood instituted by Respondent No.2 herein, Dr. Mudumala Issac Abhilash, who is represented by Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, the Ld. Counsel appearing on his behalf. Though there are 10 Respondents in this Appeal and only Respondent No.2 is present today, it is stated by the counsels, that the respondents other than Respondent No.2 have been the opposite party (Respondents) to the proceedings of the Company Petition and therefore their, rights will not be affected if this appeal is heard in their absence. Hence, we proceed to decide the matter which was preferred under Section 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant in the capacity of being an opposite party to the proceedings under Section 241,of the Companies Act, 2013 could at all have any grievances as against the impugned order, in which Ld. Adjudicating Authority by exercising its discretion, has called for a Fresh Forensic Audit Report to facilitate decision-making, and that too, after observing that the contents of the earlier forensic audit report could not be justified by its authors on examination by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. When questioned thus, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that calling for a fresh forensic Audit report would yet again delay the finalization of the proceedings and it will run contrary to the earlier order passed by this Appellate Tribun....