2016 (12) TMI 2 - Tri - Companies Law

Rejection of CFSL reports - difference between an expert and a witness of fact - Held that - Placing non-reliance upon the expert s opinion is the final outcome of appreciation thereof in the light of other evidence, circumstances etc., to be done at the final stage of the matter. His report has no value as such without his oral evidence. There is no necessity of expressing an opinion about the reliability of the report at this stage and reject the same at the threshold. If it is done at this stage and the report is expunged from the record, the party in whose favour the opinion is expressed by the expert would be put to disadvantage. If at all the expert is examined by the opposite party to prove the contents of the report, then it is open to the petitioner to raise the same objections raised now, to demolish the reliability of the expert opinion and his evidence. We are, therefore, not impressed with the sustainability of the relief claimed in this petition.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over removal of directorship and alleged fabrication of documents
- Challenge to reports of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) on grounds of procedural irregularities
- Relevance and evidentiary value of expert reports in company law proceedings

Analysis:
1. Dispute over Directorship Removal: The petitioner alleged that he was removed from directorship without his knowledge through fabrication of documents, including a resignation letter and share transfer forms. The respondents claimed that the petitioner had sold his shares and tendered resignation, which were accepted by the Board. The matter was referred to CFSL for forensic examination of disputed documents, including signatures and thumb impressions.

2. Challenge to CFSL Reports: The petitioner challenged the CFSL reports citing procedural irregularities, such as delays in comparison and receipt of documents in unsealed condition. The petitioner sought rejection of the reports based on these grounds, raising doubts on the authenticity of the forensic analysis. The respondents denied all allegations and urged dismissal of the petition.

3. Evidentiary Value of Expert Reports: The Tribunal considered the relevance of expert reports in company law proceedings, emphasizing the distinction between an expert and a witness of fact. The Tribunal highlighted that an expert's opinion is advisory and not substantive evidence, requiring corroboration through oral examination in court. The Court held that the reliability of an expert report should be assessed at the final stage based on other evidence and circumstances, rather than rejecting it prematurely.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner's request to reject the CFSL reports at that stage was premature. Emphasizing the need for expert examination in court, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, stating that the report's reliability should be evaluated in the final stages of the proceedings. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the judgment was pronounced on September 21, 2016.

In summary, the judgment addressed the dispute over directorship removal, the challenge to CFSL reports, and the evidentiary value of expert opinions in company law proceedings, ultimately dismissing the petition and emphasizing the need for thorough examination of expert reports during the final stages of the case.