Skip to main content

TRUE & FAIR: HOW MUCH?


While reading through the annual report of one of the listed company (TRF Ltd – A Tata Enterprise) in India my attention was drawn to a small paragraph in the ANNEXURE TO NOTICE - Explanatory Statements pursuant to Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. Although, the paragraph was concise but it provided enormous information on the company’s profitability.

Reasons for loss or inadequate profits:

The financial mis-statements were noticed in a particular division for earlier years. This was done by a group of officers who were discharged from the Company and Company has initiated necessary legal proceedings against them. A new team, who had taken charge of the division had reviewed the costs of the projects under execution and corrected the same where ever necessary. Consequently, the Company had to book losses in the division bringing down the overall profits of the Company.

This paragraph quite evidently mentions “mis-statements” by group of officers in a division. The company has initiated legal proceedings against them. Is it an indication by the company that money has been siphoned off by this group of officers or alternatively can we believe that the company has detected fraud in this division?

The highlights section in the annual report throws light on the profitability.

Consolidated PBT 2009- 10: 7,387 lakhs Rupees

Consolidated PBT: 2010- 11: 712 lakhs Rupees

Fall in profits by: 90.36%

The company has a functioning audit committee since 1997 which meets the representative of internal auditors (Big 4 company) and statutory auditors (another Big 4 company) regularly. To any one’s guess what is discussed regularly in such meeting with representatives of Big 4s.

The auditor’s report (Big 4 is a statutory auditor) states that:

Based on our audit and on consideration of the reports of other auditors on separate financial statements and on other financial information of the components, and to the best of our information and according to the explanations given to us, in our opinion the Consolidated Financial Statements give a true and fair view in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in India

Few questions which I do not know who will answer:

Did the auditors not detect the fraud when the company initiated legal action against a group of officers of a particular division?

Did the auditors not read the annual report of the company?

Did the auditors not find the drop in profitability compared to earlier year by 91% alarming and material?

What was the corporate governance from the audit committee’s perspective?

Who is answerable to the present shareholders of the company?

And finally;

HOW MUCH TRUE & FAIR WERE/ ARE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OPINED BY THE AUDITORS?

For your reference and read as a case study of corporate governance link of the company annual report is attached.

Labels:

Comments

  1. Adv (CA) Pooja Ashok GuptaJan 20, 2012, 11:03:00 PM

    The link to the annual report is embedded in the title of the above article.
    http://www.trf.co.in/pdf/ar2010-11.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. Milap ThakrarApr 19, 2012, 5:26:00 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Milap ThakrarApr 19, 2012, 5:26:00 PM

    very well pointed out mam ... :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Adv (CA) Pooja Ashok GuptaApr 23, 2012, 10:40:00 AM

    Thank ya very much Milap..

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maintenance Charges Default: No Water, No Sympathy

In what can only be described as a case of forum shopping (trying to find the friendliest court), an apartment owner in Shiv Vihar CHS, Dombivali (East), took his complaints on a legal tour. The petitioner, Vilas Gopal Dongare member of the society was unhappy. Why? Because his water supply was cut off. The reason? He had not paid his maintenance bills, which had piled up to a whopping Rs. 7 Lakhs! Despite making several complaints about the alleged harassment by the society and even a water tank causing structural issues in his building, his cries were heard and promptly dismissed. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission looked into his case and, on 05.02.2020, decided it was not a human rights violation. They said, “Pay your bills first.” The society initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) to recover arrears and got a Recovery Certificate issued in its favour. When the petitioner’s appeal against this certificate wa...
Post a Comment
Read more

AMORTISED COST CALCULATION: THE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE (EIR)

IAS 39 mandates some financial assets and liabilities to be subsequently measured at ‘amortized cost’.  This measurement concept is a management theory put in accounting practice. It means that the contractual interest rate each period should be adjusted to amortize the transaction costs over the expected life of the financial instrument. The amortization is calculated on an effective interest rate (EIR) / yield-to-maturity (YTM) basis. The EIR is the rate that exactly discounts the stream of principal and interest cash flows excluding any impact of credit losses, to the initial net proceeds. It is important to note that EIR method does not take into account any future credit impairments anticipated on that instrument. The carrying amount of the financial instrument subsequently measured at amortized cost is computed as: Transaction costs are an integral part of the amortized cost calculation. They are defined as costs that are directly attributable to the acquisit...
49 comments
Read more

Court Upholds Co-operative Membership Transfer with Release Deed

In the case of Bima Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. WP 10768 of 2024 , the Bombay High Court on 23.09.2024 dismissed the society’s petition challenging the membership transfer to Pushpa Morey, a widow, following her husband's death. Initially, Pushpa was granted provisional membership but was later denied full membership by the society. Pushpa applied for full membership after her husband's passing. When the society refused, she sought help from the Deputy Registrar, who ordered that the society admit her as a full member under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society’s appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was unsuccessful, prompting the writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The society argued that the "family arrangement" concept under Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies only to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Pushpa, however, contended tha...
2 comments
Read more