- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Government Seeks National Company Law Tribunal’s Nod To Freeze Assets Of IL&FS Arm Audit Partners Deloitte, BSR
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has sought the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT’s) nod to freeze the assets and bank lockers of Deloitte Haskins & Sells as well as KPMG-network auditor BSR & Associates.In this connection, it may be recalled that both these former auditors of IL&FS Financial Services (IFIN) were named in a recent Serious Fraud...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has sought the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT’s) nod to freeze the assets and bank lockers of Deloitte Haskins & Sells as well as KPMG-network auditor BSR & Associates.
In this connection, it may be recalled that both these former auditors of IL&FS Financial Services (IFIN) were named in a recent Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) complaint.
After hearing the MCA’s argument, the NCLT had adjourned the matter till August 28 since its order permitting prosecution of the auditors was stayed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) earlier.
The Mumbai Bench of the NCLT categorically recently stated that it won’t pass any order in the case until the NCLAT decides on whether permission should be granted to the MCA to prosecute the auditors of IL&FS.
However, the counsel for the auditors objected to the MCA’s plea, stating that they were no longer party to the case, since the NCLAT had stayed the NCLT order giving permission to the ministry to prosecute them.
Earlier, the NCLT had barred former IL&FS directors from “creating third-party rights, mortgaging or alienating movable and immovable assets fully or partly owned”.
The MCA had prayed to the NCLT to extend the same order to audit firms and their partners named in the SFIO complaint and other individuals, but the MCA had stated that it was necessary to do so in order to prevent diversion of funds.