Office Of The Official Liquidator vs Nil on 22 October, 2008

-1-

IN THE'. HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA "  

DATED THIS '3?HE 22'" £}AY:;_OF:.HC')Cf£'{3,B»E3R'

33 Ease

THE I-iON'8LE MRs.JUs'19't:;?}#: B V"'NAg§Ai§A'§;1NA
' 
co.  9.85 ;V ., 
BETWEEN       

unauuum---.--.---nu.

ormca 0:}? THE " 'éFEI'cIA1, 'L;QUIDFX'I'OR
HIGH COURT 0?  "=:_'""' FLOOR
1".) & F wme', }\'E1NI§RI'fA skmiz
KoRA:~»:ANGALA;_;3p,NG2=.:.oz§E:e.5'6o 034

.  ,   - ...APPLICANT

I-T ('B'yA 312:" gamma 5. s:'§ii v JAYARAM, ADvs.,)

.--..aun.cuo..i..

. . .RESPONDENT

‘TI:ii–S APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
4-62 Q5’ THE} cmymzss ACT, 1956 R/W RULES 11(1))
= ;x.~:.:;1__293 OF THE comwaxzs (comm) RULES, 1955

PRAYING TO APPGINT AN AUDITOR TO AUDIT THE

‘T%L4..«”‘AV’A€.-coumws 05′ THE OFFICIAL Lxguxnmon FOR THE

* 2 *

HALF YEAR ENDING 31.3.2008 AND :Fi$ RHiS y

REMUNERATION AND ETC.,

THIS APPLICATION ca&INe~.bfl% FéR”éRpERS

THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FQLLOW:NG:* 24RA~

1g§E§E%
Auditor’s re§Grt’@駧§§%@». Aflai£§r’s fee
is fixed in terms pf fihéfegfiéfi gated 8.6.2007
passed in 0L$Lflo§Z1ifiéOOi; kw 3’
jgeggi$amg§£* §£_ se§£ion 462(5) cf the
CompafiiésAc§ %$ fli§pénsed with.

§¢d§rdingi§} the application is allowed.

SELL.

Jiuigna

.#Bkv