Case Law Details
Case Name : Punita Khatter Vs. Explorers Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (National Company Law Tribunal Delhi)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
NCLT
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Punita Khatter Vs. Explorers Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (National Company Law Tribunal)
Since it was argued by the Respondents that the Auditor’s report being independent had to be incorporated in the Directors Report so as to apprise the shareholders of the true situation and there was no discretion in omitting the same, this Bench thought it fit to hear the Chartered Accountant as well as seek an opinion from the Institute of Chartered Accountant whether the statements such as those made in the aforesaid objected paragraphs would fall within the jurisdiction of a Chartered Accountant...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
OFFHAND
“NCLT held that Company should go ahead with convening of the AGM called for at the appointed time, but all derogatory remarks of a personal nature, having no relevance on the financial statements SHOULD STAND DELETED OR EXPUNGED FROM THE AUDITOR” REPORT”
(FONT supplied)
Unclear what was the ICAI’s opinion tendered, what precisely is the view taken by NCLT on the point of grievance raised. Be that as it may, how the suggested deletion or expunging of any of the derogatory remarks of a personal nature, would really ‘put the clock back’ so to say, and save or help the already created embarrassing situation for the aggrieved is equally unclear. Perhaps, at best, in order to avoid a repetition of this kind of situation – of adverse publicity – in future, besides the ICAI , the concerned authority (ies) , should think of and have in place appropriate rules for effectively having a control.
Now the NCLT Order is public and can be viewed y the shareholders as well as public; was the purpose of protection from defamation achieved? I wonder 🙂
OFFHAND
It is said (para 12.) that the final hearing had been posted in early August (2017 ?). If so, the final outcome may have been known, by now; but not made known.
Incidentally,, the whole dispute is centered on one point of grave objection to the audit report i.e. – “PERSONAL NATURE”.
Incidentally, one is left personally wondering, -should not then it would have made more sense, and been prudent, had the matter not been given so much publicity prematurely; but been reported only after the dispute has been finally concluded !
May be, law pundits at large hold a different or like view ?!