TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. - COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2014 (HT COMPANY PETITION NO. 08 (ND) OF 2009) - - - Dated:- 21-9-2016 - Shri V. S. R. Avadhani, And Shri H. P. Chaturvedi, JJ. ORDER V.S.R. Avadhani, Judicial Member This Company Application is filed by the petitioner in the Company Petition which itself was filed under Sections 397,398 403 406 of Companies Act, 1956 (si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atures and the thumb mark of the petitioner to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi. To be more clear, as per orders dated 03.09.2013 and 18.10.2013 the Board had referred the following documents for forensic examination after obtaining specimen signatures and thumb mark of the petitioner in the court. The documents are: (i.) Original Board Resolution dated 01.09.2007; (ii.) Original Resignation Letter dated 01.09.2007; (iii). Original Receipt dated 05.11.2007 for ₹ 30,000/-; and, (iv.) Original Share Transfer Form dated 19.10.2007;5. The director CFSL had forwarded two separate reports dated 08 03. 2014 and 21.05.2014 to the Board, viz., the first report dated 08 03 2014 is with respect to the disputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the basis of the above grounds, the petitioner contends that it creates 'serious doubt' on the report of the finger print and hand writing experts of CFSL and therefore requested the Board to 'reject' the reports dated 05.03.2014 and 21.05.2014. That is the purport of the application. The respondents filed a detailed counter in which they have emphatically and steadily denied every averment made in the petition and urged to dismiss the same. 7. We have heard both the learned Counsels at length and have given our consideration to the facts and circumstances. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that the record itself speaks volume about the unreliability of the reports of the CFSL and in as much as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 'expert' and a 'witness of fact'. The expert, at any rate, is not a witness of fact Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. [2009] 9 SCC 709. His evidence is only 'opinion' and is advisory in character. His report, is not evidence and to substantiate his opinion expressed in the report, he shall invariably be examined in the Court and subject himself to the scrutiny of examination and cross examination. His evidence and the opinion have to be corroborated before accepting the report as reliable and to be read in evidence. Only when it inspires confidence of the Court, Court can accept his report and there is no rule that the evidence of the handwriting expert shall be accepted under all circumstances. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
