Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 6 - HC - Indian LawsMismatching in the questioned and the admitted signatures - Appeal against order of CLB - dismissal of application filed by the petitioner seeking a dismissal of the petition filed by Naveen Gupta - additional prayer to initiate proceedings u/s 340 of the Cr.PC for forged signatures - Held that - Apart from the fact that Naveen Gupta had appeared in the Court and owned his signatures on the rejoinder and the affidavits accompanying it, the CLB has also returned a fact finding that there is nothing on record to show that Naveen Gupta was not in Delhi at the time when the said affidavit was filed, this Court has also perused the documents and there appears to be no manifestly evident difference in the questioned and the admitted signatures for which recourse is required for the non-applicant to be hauled-up for the offences under Section 463 or 471 of the IPC. As noted supra, it is also not the argument of the petitioner that any benefit has occurred to Naveen Gupta or the corresponding loss has occurred to the opposing party. In such a situation, no case for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.PC is made out. The intent of fraud on the part of Naveen Gupta is clearly not made out. This appeal is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Being a wastage of its precious time, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-.
Issues involved:
1. Discharge of caveats. 2. Exemption application. 3. Appeal against Company Law Board order. 4. Allegations of fraudulent signatures and initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.PC. 5. Legal interpretation of Sections 463 and 471 of the IPC. 6. Application of legal principles from the case of Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration. 7. Dismissal of appeal as an abuse of the process of the Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment begins with the discharge of caveats as the learned counsel for the caveator appeared, and the caveats stand discharged. 2. An exemption application was allowed subject to all just exceptions, and the application was disposed of accordingly. 3. The appeal was directed against the Company Law Board's order dismissing a petition and seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.PC against the petitioner. 4. Allegations were made regarding fraudulent signatures by the petitioner, Naveen Gupta, and the need for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.PC. The Court examined the evidence, including comparisons of signatures and affidavits, to determine the validity of the allegations. 5. The legal interpretation of Sections 463 and 471 of the IPC was crucial in assessing whether the elements of fraud were present in the case. 6. The judgment referenced the case of Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration to apply legal principles regarding deceit, injury, and fraud to the current case, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent to defraud. 7. Ultimately, the Court found that there was no clear evidence of fraudulent intent or unfair advantage gained by the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as an abuse of the Court's process, with costs imposed on the appellant.
|