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

- 1 .. _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS '1'!-IE'.-24'" DAY or OCTOBER..._2O§)'fi 'V:.V.

BE FORE

THE HON' BLE1 MRs.Jus':'IcE:'""B"'v 

c.A.No.%4 00/Aé.Q§,§ 
co. P.N0';'--v§L;L;;;{_2006'---.

BETWEEN

-.--.--............q,,..............

OFFICE or THE oE=':-'flIVC:AL --:r,;r'Q,L_1I_nz:rroR
HIGH com-rr "er manmmm,  W __ FLOOR
:3 & E' WING, ':z3r4:3R1YA---<sAp)=ar;"""
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE'-.-_-56.0' 034

   - ...A?PLICANT

(r;-ii' Sm; "Di:;§.--,g);.!{"'  SR1}? JAYARAM, Anvs . , 1

' ' -----.-------

. . . RESPONDENT

.«THI.8. :”APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

“~ ‘_é..62«?C)F ‘I’HE comeaums ACT, 1.956 R./W RULES 13.(b)

}31.’~3 I}..2_93 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1956

V. v–_PAR.?J;YVING TO APPOINT AN AUDITOR TO AUDIT THE
vgccounws 0? THE OFFICIAL LIQUI3?-XTOR FOR THE

…2…

HALF YEAR ENDING 31.3.2008 AN9f;£ik:.Hfs,V*

REMUNERATION AND E’I’C., _

THIS APPLICATION coMiN6f’éNl*£éR .¢ébafiS_

THIS may, THE COURT Mama THE3FGLL0WEN@;H }

Auditor’s rep6r£-éqq%pté&Q Auditor’S fee
is fixed in te;msJbf’fih¢-§rfi¢r;§$ted 8.6.2007
passed in fiLRifiQ.2:l/2Q0?f H.W

éequiremefiz -gf section 462(5) ef the

Companiés Act is disfigssed with.

v ‘-fl Aééqmfiingly, the application is allowed.

£3CLfi-

Ihckge

“bkv