AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 205 wordsHeard learned counsel for the respondent/applicant, learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant and learned counsel Mr. Arjun Natarajan appearing for TRAI.
Mainly on account of dis-agreement over fees, audit under Regulation 15(2) at the instance of the respondent/applicant could not proceed from 25.11.2021. According to the petitioner M/s . Borkar and Mazumdar were not ready even to discuss the matter of fees for negotiations. Whatever be the reasons, petitioner is given another chance to pursuade M/s Borkar and Mazumdar or M/s. BDO India LLP or BECIL to agree for the audit on mutually acceptable fees. All the aforesaid names of empanelled auditors are from the list suggested by TRAI on the request of the Tribunal. The outcome of the exercise alongwith name of the auditor should be made known to the Tribunal on the next date. An Advocate Commissioner shall also be appointed to over see the conduct of audit in view of reluctance of TRAI to depute an officer for the said purpose on account of special features of this case. Suitable name(s) should be suggested by the respondent / applicant on the next date after obtaining the consent of the learned Advocate Commissioner.
Post the matter for considering the aforesaid limited purpose on 21.12.2021.