C.A. No. 169 of 2013 in C.P. No. 1 (ND) of 2013. Case: Ganesh Bindal Vs Harmandeep Singh. Company Law Board
| Case Number | C.A. No. 169 of 2013 in C.P. No. 1 (ND) of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Lakshmi Gurung and Sujeet Kumar Mishra and For Respondents: P. Nagesh |
| Judges | Dhan Raj, (Member) |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 340; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397, 398, 402, 403; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 191, 193, 195 |
| Citation | 2014 (185) CompCas 1 (CLB) |
| Judgement Date | January 01, 2014 |
| Court | Company Law Board |
Order:
Dhan Raj, (Member), (Northern Region Bench, New Delhi)
1. In this case, the petitioner has filed a petition under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, for alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement on the part of the respondents and the same is pending adjudication, in the meantime the petitioner has filed the present company application with the prayer to take cognisance of the offence committed by the respondents and direct appropriate inquiry under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Precisely speaking, it has been stated in the company application that the petitioner has strong suspicion that it is respondent No. 1 who appears to have fabricated the false signature of respondent No. 2 on the pages of the reply. Further, the resignation letter of the petitioner and another director of the company, viz., Shri Harcharan Singh have also been fabricated and misused against the petitioner and submitted to the Registrar of Companies apart from the fabricated resolution of the company dated July 5, 2011. In addition, it has also been submitted that the respondents misutilised and misused the signature given by the petitioner on blank paper in good faith, by using the same to fabricate a board resolution dated July 5, 2011. In this regard, it has been pointed out that there is a wide gap between the line where the text of the resolution ends and where the signature is purported to have been affixed by the petitioner. Furthermore, even the official designation stamp, is tilting towards the right side edge of the page, falling outside the right margin on the contents of the resolution. Not only this, pre-signed blank papers have been misused by respondent No. 1 to fabricate the alleged affidavit signed on October 14, 2010, to suit his own needs and convenience. Though there have been various litigations and proceedings before various forums, but till date the alleged affidavit has never been produced before any authority and it has been produced for the first time by using back dated adhesive stamps. With regard to the said affidavit, the following discrepancies have also been pointed out:
(a) While affidavit is purported to have been sworn and given under oath by the deponent in his individual capacity, the said affidavit has been purported to be issued on behalf of the company, i.e., M/s. Chausana Food Processings P. Ltd. Thus, such an affidavit has no standing in the eyes of law.
(b) Though any affidavit is required to be duly verified by the deponent, the affidavit in question does not bear any such verification and as such not an affidavit in the eyes of law and does not carry any weight.
(c) The alleged affidavit has not even been attested by the Oath Commissioner nor notarised by an authorised Notary. Therefore, the said affidavit lacks veracity and is of no consequence and effect and a non est in the eyes of law.
(d) The adhesive stamps affixed on the pre-signed blank papers have been manipulated by respondent No. 1 as the same were never purchased by the petitioner, it is submitted that ante-dated stamps have been procured by respondent No. 1. The petitioner reserves its right to initiate appropriate proceedings against respondent No. 1 for playing such fraud.
The present company application was filed on September 6, 2013 and respondents' advocate as well as the petitioner's advocate agreed for putting up arguments without submission of reply and rejoinder respectively. In view of this, the company application was taken up for final arguments.
2. The petitioner's advocate argued that the signature of respondent No. 2 appearing in the pleadings and all affidavits as deponent, attached with the written statement reply to applications in Company Petition No. 1 (ND) of 2012 are forged and fabricated and they are different from the signature on the sale deed executed by him...
To continue reading
Request your trial