Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 2 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD

2016 (12) TMI 2 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD - TMI - 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ility 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in the Company Petition which itself was filed under Sections 397,398 403 & 406 of Companies Act, 1956 (since repealed by Companies Act, 2013) We feel it is not necessary to make intricate reference to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner he has further asserted that he had not tendered resignation, nor did he sold or transferred his shares to the second respondent or did he had withdrawn the consideration from the Bank by either signing or affixing his thumb mark on the receipts or vouchers. His contention therefore is, all these documents are forged. 3. The Respondents' contention is that the petitioner had sold away his shares to the 2nd respondent and tendered resignation and the same was accepted by the Board and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 repo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt could not be done and the Senior Scientific Officer Grade II had addressed thus: ". . . . that after comparison it has been felt necessary to have ample number of admittedly genuine signatures written during usual course of business and of the contemporary period along with a few sheets of specimen signatures of the person called Pawan Tiwari for further scientific examination and to arrive at any opinion." 6. Now the petitioner challenges the above reports of the CFSL on the follow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ence and it is only an opinion and at the time of final hearing, the petitioner can demonstrate to the Tribunal that the report cannot be taken into account to arrive at a final conclusion on the disputed questions of fact and therefore rejection of the report at this stage is uncalled for and premature. 8. In view of the above pleadings and arguments, the point arises before us for consideration is: Whether the reports of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory dated 05.03.2014 and 21.05.2014 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Common law that are perhaps embedded in the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be ignored in the process of decision making. There is a manifest difference between an '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 invariabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version