Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.61 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Deloitte Haskins And Sells Llp on 3 May, 2023

Mr. M Madhusudhana Reddy vs National Financial Reporting ... on 10 June, 2025

23. Be that as it may, the issues raised in this writ petitions are no longer res integra. In the similar circumstances, when NFRA while exercising powers under Section 132(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11(6) of NFRA Rules, 2018, issued notices to the various other auditors and companies and passed orders, the same were questioned on the file of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Company Appeal (AT) No.68/2023 and batch. The NCLAT placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sukumar's case (supra); Union of India and others vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP and another 11; Mayarani Punch CIT, Income Tax Deli12 and S. Ganesan vs A.K. Joscelyne 13, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana 14 dismissed the appeals vide common order dated 01.12.2023 observing that if new law is made to take care of known wrongs for the benefits of the society on its own, then the provision of retrospective application in new law may not be required and necessary implication need to be made out from the language employed. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2013 in Company 11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 557 12 1986(1) SCC 445 13 1957 SCC Online Cal 43 14 (2004) 8 SCC 1 19 Appeal (AT) No.68 of 2023 passed by the NCLAT, the Civil Appeal No.3656 of 2024 was filed on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the NCLAT.
Telangana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Ayyagari Krishna Rao vs National Financial Reporting ... on 10 June, 2025

23. Be that as it may, the issues raised in this writ petitions are no longer res integra. In the similar circumstances, when NFRA while exercising powers under Section 132(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11(6) of NFRA Rules, 2018, issued notices to the various other auditors and companies and passed orders, the same were questioned on the file of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Company Appeal (AT) No.68/2023 and batch. The NCLAT placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sukumar's case (supra); Union of India and others vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP and another 11; Mayarani Punch CIT, Income Tax Deli12 and S. Ganesan vs A.K. Joscelyne 13, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana 14 dismissed the appeals vide common order dated 01.12.2023 observing that if new law is made to take care of known wrongs for the benefits of the society on its own, then the provision of retrospective application in new law may not be required and necessary implication need to be made out from the language employed. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2013 in Company 11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 557 12 1986(1) SCC 445 13 1957 SCC Online Cal 43 14 (2004) 8 SCC 1 19 Appeal (AT) No.68 of 2023 passed by the NCLAT, the Civil Appeal No.3656 of 2024 was filed on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the NCLAT.
Telangana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.G.Tarak Nath M.No.23302 vs National Financial Reporting ... on 10 June, 2025

23. Be that as it may, the issues raised in this writ petitions are no longer res integra. In the similar circumstances, when NFRA while exercising powers under Section 132(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11(6) of NFRA Rules, 2018, issued notices to the various other auditors and companies and passed orders, the same were questioned on the file of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Company Appeal (AT) No.68/2023 and batch. The NCLAT placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sukumar's case (supra); Union of India and others vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP and another 11; Mayarani Punch CIT, Income Tax Deli12 and S. Ganesan vs A.K. Joscelyne 13, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana 14 dismissed the appeals vide common order dated 01.12.2023 observing that if new law is made to take care of known wrongs for the benefits of the society on its own, then the provision of retrospective application in new law may not be required and necessary implication need to be made out from the language employed. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2013 in Company 11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 557 12 1986(1) SCC 445 13 1957 SCC Online Cal 43 14 (2004) 8 SCC 1 19 Appeal (AT) No.68 of 2023 passed by the NCLAT, the Civil Appeal No.3656 of 2024 was filed on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the NCLAT.
Telangana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Mukund Vijayrao Joshi vs National Financial Reporting ... on 10 June, 2025

23. Be that as it may, the issues raised in this writ petitions are no longer res integra. In the similar circumstances, when NFRA while exercising powers under Section 132(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11(6) of NFRA Rules, 2018, issued notices to the various other auditors and companies and passed orders, the same were questioned on the file of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Company Appeal (AT) No.68/2023 and batch. The NCLAT placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sukumar's case (supra); Union of India and others vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP and another 11; Mayarani Punch CIT, Income Tax Deli12 and S. Ganesan vs A.K. Joscelyne 13, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana 14 dismissed the appeals vide common order dated 01.12.2023 observing that if new law is made to take care of known wrongs for the benefits of the society on its own, then the provision of retrospective application in new law may not be required and necessary implication need to be made out from the language employed. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2013 in Company 11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 557 12 1986(1) SCC 445 13 1957 SCC Online Cal 43 14 (2004) 8 SCC 1 19 Appeal (AT) No.68 of 2023 passed by the NCLAT, the Civil Appeal No.3656 of 2024 was filed on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the NCLAT.
Telangana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pcn And Associates vs National Financial Reporting ... on 10 June, 2025

23. Be that as it may, the issues raised in this writ petitions are no longer res integra. In the similar circumstances, when NFRA while exercising powers under Section 132(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11(6) of NFRA Rules, 2018, issued notices to the various other auditors and companies and passed orders, the same were questioned on the file of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Company Appeal (AT) No.68/2023 and batch. The NCLAT placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sukumar's case (supra); Union of India and others vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP and another 11; Mayarani Punch CIT, Income Tax Deli12 and S. Ganesan vs A.K. Joscelyne 13, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana 14 dismissed the appeals vide common order dated 01.12.2023 observing that if new law is made to take care of known wrongs for the benefits of the society on its own, then the provision of retrospective application in new law may not be required and necessary implication need to be made out from the language employed. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2013 in Company 11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 557 12 1986(1) SCC 445 13 1957 SCC Online Cal 43 14 (2004) 8 SCC 1 19 Appeal (AT) No.68 of 2023 passed by the NCLAT, the Civil Appeal No.3656 of 2024 was filed on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the NCLAT.
Telangana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S P Murali And Co. vs National Financial Reporting ... on 10 June, 2025

23. Be that as it may, the issues raised in this writ petitions are no longer res integra. In the similar circumstances, when NFRA while exercising powers under Section 132(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11(6) of NFRA Rules, 2018, issued notices to the various other auditors and companies and passed orders, the same were questioned on the file of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Company Appeal (AT) No.68/2023 and batch. The NCLAT placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sukumar's case (supra); Union of India and others vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP and another 11; Mayarani Punch CIT, Income Tax Deli12 and S. Ganesan vs A.K. Joscelyne 13, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana 14 dismissed the appeals vide common order dated 01.12.2023 observing that if new law is made to take care of known wrongs for the benefits of the society on its own, then the provision of retrospective application in new law may not be required and necessary implication need to be made out from the language employed. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2013 in Company 11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 557 12 1986(1) SCC 445 13 1957 SCC Online Cal 43 14 (2004) 8 SCC 1 19 Appeal (AT) No.68 of 2023 passed by the NCLAT, the Civil Appeal No.3656 of 2024 was filed on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the NCLAT.
Telangana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1