Case Law Details
Case Name : Punita Khatter Vs. Explorers Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (National Company Law Tribunal Delhi)
Appeal Number : C.A. No. 194 of 2017, C.P. No. 3(ND) of 2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/07/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
NCLT
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
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
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
3 Comments
Leave a Comment
Subscribe to Our Daily Newsletter
Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
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 ?!