AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This Appeal is accompanied with the Condone Delay Application, being IA No. 467/2025, where the Appellant has sought a Condonation of 6 days of delay, which has chanced in preferring the appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the Appeal has been assigned in Para 2(c) and 2(d), which states that the delay was caused owing to the ailment being suffered by one of the Appellant’s relative. The reason seems to be acceptable. Further, the number of days of delay, which has been sought to be condoned is well within the ambit of the prescription of law. Hence, the delay of 6 days would stand ‘condoned’ and accordingly, IA No. 467/2025 would stand ‘allowed’.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to hear the appeal for its final determination.
Primarily, the Appellant while questioning the validity of the Impugned Order dated 02.12.2024, questions the propriety of the order as passed in IA(CA)/184(CHE)2023, as it was preferred in CP(CA)/03/CHE/2023. The consequential effect of the impugned order, has been the appointment of a Statutory Auditor exclusively for the purposes of preparing the financial statements of the Company in question, for the relevant years as referred to in Para 13 of the Impugned Order. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the Appellant had primarily drawn the concern and attention of this Tribunal, to the findings which have been recorded in Para 11 & 12 of the Impugned Order and she apprehends that these findings may create an impediment against her, in any other future proceedings or even in the proceedings of the Company Petition, itself when it is taken up independently. The relevant para 11 and 12 are extracted hereunder :-
“11.In this case, till date, the decision in the EGM has not been put to effect. The documents placed on record show that R3 to R7 were the Additional Directors in the Company and their term expired on 31.12.2022 since no AGM was held thereafter and their appointments have not yet been regularized.
12.In terms of the provisions of Section 137 of the Companies Act, financials are to be filed before the Registrar, lest it will lead to penalty and disqualification and the Statutory Auditor is to be appointed for completing the financials.”
The learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Alpa Jain, PCS., contends that the observations made in the paras as above were not even pleaded by the Respondents in their application IA No. 184/2023. In order to, rule out the apprehension as expressed by the learned counsel for the Appellant and particularly with an intention that, the proceedings of the Company Petition may be brought to an end at the earliest, we are of the view that any observations that, the Tribunal has made in Para 11 & 12, will be taken presently to be recorded only for the purposes of justifying the appointment of the Auditor under Section 137(2), of the Companies Act, 2013 and such observations and findings as recorded in para 11 & 12 of the Impugned Order will be confined to be read only for the purposes of the present order itself and they will not be read in detriment to the interest of the Appellants in any other future proceeding. It is expected that those proceedings which are to be held in future are to be decided exclusively in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.29/2025 stands ‘closed’.