Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Pawan Tiwari Versus Shri Ganga Sheetgrih Private Limited & Others

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

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 thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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in the Company Petition which itself was filed under Sections 397,398 403 & 406 of Companies Act, 1956 (since repealed by Companies Act, 2013) We feel it is not necessary to make intricate reference to the conflicting claims in the main company petition except to have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nor did he sold or transferred his shares to the second respondent or did he had withdrawn the consideration from the Bank by either signing or affixing his thumb mark on the receipts or vouchers.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 the same was communicated to the bank for record purpose and the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 following grounds, as cull out from the present application. (i) The Benc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 are liable for rejection? Point: The area of controversy in this com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 invariably be examined in the Court and subject himself to the scrutiny of e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version