Supreme Court Directs Court-Appointed Administrator To Seek Fresh Fee Quotes For Forensic Audit In Venus Petrochemicals Case

The Supreme Court recently directed the court-appointed administrator of Venus Petrochemicals (Bombay) Private Limited to obtain quotations from local forensic firms and appoint a suitable forensic auditor after the appellant company objected to the professional fee quoted by the auditor earlier appointed by the court.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order while disposing of an interlocutory application in a pending civil appeal.

The grievance raised in the application was that Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, which had been appointed as a forensic auditor by the Court through its order dated November 19, 2025, quoted a professional fee that was “not to the liking of the appellant-company”.

Taking note of the objection, the Court observed that it would be appropriate for the Administrator already appointed to oversee the affairs of the company to obtain quotations from other local forensic firms and appoint a suitable forensic auditor.

“It would be appropriate for Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sadhana Sanjay Jadhav, former Judge, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, who was appointed as the Administrator of the company, to obtain quotations from other local forensic firms and appoint a suitable forensic auditor to undertake the work in question,” the bench said.

The court clarified that the Administrator may also seek a quotation from the existing auditor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, before taking a decision, and added that it would be for the administrator to chart out the course to be adopted by the forensic auditor.

The court further directed that both parties must be taken into confidence before the Administrator arrives at a final decision regarding the appointment.

The civil appeal arises out of a dispute between two shareholder groups of the Mumbai-based company, which had earlier led to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company.

In earlier proceedings in the appeal, the Supreme Court had appointed a former Bombay High Court judge as Administrator to oversee the functioning of the company and had also directed a forensic audit of its accounts and financial records.