M/S. Nagarjuna Coated Tubes Limited (In Liqn) vs. No.Respondent

Facts

The Official Liquidator, attached to the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, filed Company Application No. 96 of 2025 in R.C.C. No. 8 of 1991 concerning M/s. Nagarjuna Coated Tubes Limited (in liquidation). The application sought to take on record the half-yearly accounts for the period 01/04/2023 to 30/09/2023, along with the Independent Auditors' Report dated 27/05/2025. It also requested permission to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors, M/s. Padmanabha Rao and Co., Chartered Accountants. Furthermore, the Official Liquidator sought permission to meet the costs of the application from the company's available funds or the Estate and Establishment Fund, subject to reimbursement upon realization of assets.

Held

The Court held that the half-yearly accounts of the subject Company, which is in liquidation for the period from 01.04.2023 to 30.09.2023, along with the Independent Auditor's Report dated 27.05.2025 submitted by M/s. Padmanabha Rao & Co., Chartered Accountants, are to be taken on record. Permission was accorded to the Official Liquidator to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the Auditor. Additionally, permission was granted to the Official Liquidator to make the said payment from the available funds of the Company (in liquidation), or from the Estate and Establishment Fund account if no fund is available in the Company's account, subject to reimbursement from the funds of the Company (in liquidation) upon realization of its assets. The Court was satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the supporting affidavit and considered the filed accounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the half-yearly accounts of the company in liquidation for the period 01/04/2023 to 30/09/2023, along with the Independent Auditors' Report dated 27/05/2025, should be taken on record. 2. Whether permission should be granted to the Official Liquidator to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors. 3. Whether the Official Liquidator should be permitted to meet the costs of the application from the company's funds or the Estate and Establishment Fund, subject to reimbursement. Arguments for the Petitioner (Official Liquidator): The Official Liquidator argued that the application was filed in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The supporting affidavit provided the necessary reasons and documentation for the requests. The payment of audit fees and application costs was essential for the proper functioning of the liquidation process. Arguments for the Revenue/State: No arguments were recorded for the Revenue or State in the judgment.