Office Of The Official Liquidator vs Nil on 24 October, 2008

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT EAgG3LdRE*5uIa

DATED THIS THE 24″‘nmxf6§Ioc$caakIé0Q3″I_7

Bmmm’
THE HON’BLE MRs.JusTI§E B v’NAGfiRAfgNA

9._8_.r;.’.I2,~1é;§II
60- P’NQ:§§3};_fQ3;?;?.,V€’–>.:”v

OFFICE 05 THE QFFICIAL BIQUIDATOR
HIGH1couRT”Q$,KnRNA$AxA,;4″‘ELGOR
D & F WING;_K5fiDR1YA SEDAN
KORAMANQALA,’BAfiGALGRE¥560 034

*» – – A. gfi …APPLIcANT

-*, (BE SR: QEB§AK_§msR1 V JAXARAM, ADVS.,}

“g’ANB_ .’~*I

. . . RESPCMDENT

THIS APPLICATIGN IS FILED UNDER SECTION

-I Jféézaor THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 R/W RULES 11(b}
‘, Ann 298 or was cxxuwwxms icouaw) RULES, 1956

WKAYING TO APPOINT AN AUDITOR TO AUDIT THE

JECCOUNTS OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUID}-RTOR FOR THE

-2-

HALF YEAR ENDING 31.3.2008
REMUNERATION AND ETC., _m~_

THIS APPLICATION COMING =0N’ rbfi”b§BéRs.

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWIRQ§ ‘ 1
Auditor’s repdfi-aQd§pfédg ¥Auditor’s fee
is fixed in termsgbf~fihé;§;&§r{&fi£ed 8.6.2007

passed in,fiLR£fiQ.2iL7300?{fl’ m”

Reuirément df mS€gfi§na’462(5} of the

Comanies Act i§Vdi$@efiS¢diQi£h.

‘3 Afio3fifiifig1yg7the application is allowed.

Sébfls
Iudgg

ANQD F:Xn_HI€_ °