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

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNA¢AKA Aw~3§fiGA®GRE "~x

DATED THIS THE 24"' om,013-Am'rt3139e;A1:§'-2{)'~::[e..__ 
Bmgagg V % .% ,. L .
THE HON'BLE MRs.Jusfi¢g.g V Nfigfiaaiana
c{A;E0f4dSf2fié8 "

V 'W ' IN_u  +A ,
',_gg.P;NQ.41;1997,*

BETWEEN ,""_1.p<'
OFFICE BF THE GFFECIAL LIQUIDATOR
HIGH  comm"  K3°;Ri=»3.A*£'Z%,i<A,' 4 "* FLOOR
D & F2WiNG,.KEwDR1iA_$AmAN
KORAMANGALA,zBANcALQRE--560 034
L=.'v -.'. y» ...APPLICANT

(3? $3: DEEPER &gSRI V JAYARAM, ADVS.,)

. . . RESPONDENT

THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

OF THE’. COMPANIES ACT, 1956 R/W RULES 11(2))

END 298 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1956
PRAYING TO APPOINT AN AUDITOR TO AUDIT THE

V’ WACCOUNTS OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR FOR THE

-2-

HALF YEAR ENDING 31.3.2003 AND? pig. a:S_ .

REZMUNEIRATION AND ETC. ,

THIS APPLICATION coM:NGfjoN'<FcR"4bfi§gfi5.

THIS DAY, THE COURT MARE THE FoLLow:N§{ ' g

6RfiER

Auditor's rep§ft-éqdépfé§;:¥Auditor's fee
is fixed in terms bf ghe ¢;dér;d§ted 8.6.2007
passed ip~G§RiN¢;2@1/2OG?Q W

Requifiéhénf" e: rSe¢tion 462(5) of the

Companiés Rgf"ié d$épensed with.

A'-»_ Acgofidingly, the application is allowed.

E§i/-

Judge.

“Ekv