2013 (9) TMI 1198 - Board - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authenticity of Board of Directors' meeting minutes.
2. Alleged forgery of documents and signatures.
3. Summoning and forensic examination of original statutory records.
4. Compliance with previous Company Law Board orders.
5. Delay tactics and frivolous applications.

Summary:

1. Authenticity of Board of Directors' meeting minutes:
The petitioner sought forensic examination of the purported minutes of Board of Directors meetings to determine their authenticity and the date of creation. The petitioner alleged that the respondents fabricated and forged these minutes, which were filed without leave of the Bench.

2. Alleged forgery of documents and signatures:
The petitioner claimed that certain documents, including DIN-2 Form, documents of Sabina Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd., and letters to the bank, bore forged signatures and were fabricated. The petitioner requested forensic examination to verify these allegations.

3. Summoning and forensic examination of original statutory records:
The petitioner requested the summoning of the original statutory records of the Respondent No. 1 Company for forensic examination to determine their authenticity and the date of creation, alleging that these records were forged to show the presence of contesting respondents in India when they were abroad.

4. Compliance with previous Company Law Board orders:
The respondents argued that the application was frivolous and intended to delay the final hearing. They stated that the minutes of Board meetings were authenticated by the Bench Officer on 31.1.2007, and the documents in question were filed along with the counter affidavit and sur-rejoinder in 2006 and 2007. The respondents also mentioned that they had sought clarification and permission from the Company Law Board regarding the fixed assets of the company and had complied with the orders.

5. Delay tactics and frivolous applications:
The respondents contended that the petitioner filed the application to further delay the proceedings, as the matter was already heard from 25.7.2011 to 27.7.2011. They argued that the petitioner had ample opportunity to raise these issues earlier but chose to do so only when the respondents were about to conclude their submissions.

Judgment:
The Bench dismissed the application, stating that the petitioner failed to provide credible reasons to send the documents for forensic examination. The Bench noted that the disputed documents were contemporaneous and filed during the normal course of business. The petitioner did not raise these issues earlier despite knowing about the documents since 2007. The Bench concluded that the application was frivolous and a delay tactic, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the respondents 2-5.