9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant regarding the alleged forgery was out of its jurisdiction - the Rule 43 of the NCLT rules, 2016 as well as the judicial dicta provides for powers to the NLCT to adjudicate such claims and direct expert examination of the alleged forgery. This Court is of the view that the NCLT is well empowered to adjudicate the issues and give its findings on the basis of the contentions advanced by the respective counsel as well as the forensic report. Matter remanded back to the NCLT for adjudication - appeal disposed off by way of remand. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH For the Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Dutta, Mr. Shyam Kishor and Mr. Maurya, Advocates. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Anirudh K Mudgal and Mr. Sanchit Saini, Advocates. ORDER CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral) 1. This common judgment/order shall decide the above-noted appeals filed by the appellant under Section 10 (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 against the common order dated 2nd December, 2015 passed by the Company Law Board, New Delhi, ( CLB hereinafter) whereby the learned CLB has dismissed the said petitions filed by the appellant herein under Sections 397, 398, 402 403 of Companies Act, 1956 2. In 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instant appeals. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned CLB erred in holding that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of forgery of documents. 11. It is submitted that the persons approaching the forum under Companies Act, 1956 are required to file a petition in the concerned civil Courts if their grievance is beyond the scope of the learned CLB, however, in the instant case, the learned CLB is well within its jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue. 12. It is submitted that the dispute in the instant case is regarding the oppression on part of the management and therefore, the same lies well within the domain of the learned CLB. 13. It is submitted that the appellant is a victim of fraud on part of the respondents, ultimately causing her great financial loss due to the change in the shareholding of the company and therefore, the learned CLB ought to have adjudicated the issue. 14. It is submitted that the appointment of the respondents no. 3 and 4 as directors of the company is in direct contravention with the provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. 15. It is submitted that the learned CLB erred in not appreciatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced below:- 43. Power of the Bench to call for further information or evidence. - (1) The Bench may, before passing orders on the petition or application, require the parties or any one or more of them, to produce such further documentary or other evidence as it may consider necessary:- (a) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the truth of the allegations made in the petition or application; or (b) for ascertaining any information which, in the opinion of the Bench, is necessary for the purpose of enabling it to pass orders in the petition or application. (2) Without prejudice to sub-rule (1), the Bench may, for the purpose of inquiry or investigation, as the case may be, admit such documentary and other mode of recordings in electronic form including e-mails, books of accounts, book or paper, written communications, statements, contracts, electronic certificates and such other similar mode of transactions as may legally be permitted to take into account of those as admissible as evidence under the relevant laws. (3) Where any party preferring or contesting a petition of oppression and mismanagement raises the issue of forgery or fabrication of any statutory records, then i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, which specifically allow for forensic examination of disputed documents, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter at hand should be remanded to the NCLT. It is crucial to ensure that no party is deprived of their rights and to prevent any mismanagement or oppression within the companies. 31. In the instant case, the learned CLB dismissed the contention of the petitioner and held as under: it does not have the power to decide the issues of forgery and fabrication of documents raised by the Appellant against Respondent No.2 to 4 and the same could be decided by a Civil Court only by holding trial. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted as under: 35. Since the issues between the petitioner and the second respondent are complicated with grave allegation of forgery and fabrication against transfer of the petitioner's shareholding and the petitioner's resignation as director from both the companies, I fear, if any decision is taken on any of these issues without testifying to these allegations. there could be every chance of aberration of justice. Therefore, this Bench is of the opinion that these issues are amenable to be decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
