✦ Karnataka High Court · 31 Mar 2012

M/S.INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD., (TOURWELL TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,)(IN LIQN.) v. NIL

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 20072007. The same may be permitted to be paid to the Auditors. The requirement, as contemplated under Section 462(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, is dispensed with. Application is accordingly disposed of. SD/- JUDGE

Judgment

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY COMPANY APPLICATION No.777 OF 2012 IN COMPANY PETITION No.26 OF 2008 BETWEEN : M/S.INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD., (TOURWELL TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,)(IN LIQN.), REPRESENTED BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, NO.26-27, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. (By Sri K S MAHADEVAN & V JAYARAM, ADVS. FOR OL) ...APPLICANT AND : NIL ...RESPONDENT THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 462 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, R/W RULES 11[b] & 298 OF THE COMPANIES [COURT] RULES, 1956, PRAYING FOR APPOINTING AN AUDITOR TO AUDIT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDING 31.03.12 AND FIX HIS REMUNERATION AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 462[5] OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND ETC., THIS APPLICATION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2 O R D E R Audit report for the period half year ending 31st March 2012, submitted on behalf of the Official Liquidator is accepted. As regards Auditors fee is concerned, the same is fixed by order dated 8th June 2007 passed in OLR No.211 of

#2007. The same may be permitted to be paid to the Auditors. The requirement, as contemplated under Section 462(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, is dispensed with. Application is accordingly disposed of. SD/- JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Companies Act, 2013 — ss. 462, 462(5).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Karnataka High Court, on 31 Mar 2012. The bench was L NARAYANA SWAMY.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Company Application No. 777 of 2012). ← Search more judgments