Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, Represented By Its Director, Ms. Veena T. – Appellant
Versus
Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the procedural history and allegations against the company. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. detailed arguments presented by the appellant and the government's counterarguments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. key observations regarding the government's authority and the legal bases for assigning investigations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. final conclusion affirming the rejection of the petition. (Para 26) |
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to call for records and quash order dated 31-01-2024 passed by the 1st respondent/Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’ for short).
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be a one person company incorporated in the year 2014, under the provisions of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013 (‘the Act’ for short) with the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Registrar’ for short). The petitioner, is represented through its Director – Share Holder. On 28-07-2020, the 2nd respondent/Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Union of India addressed a communication to the petitioner/Company observing that a complaint
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
