2020 (2) TMI 1565 - Tri - Companies Law

Alleged Document Fabrication Dismissed: Integrity Emphasized

Gay Printers Versus Pawan Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, addressed allegations of document fabrication and misleading the court. The Tribunal dismissed the ... Fabrication of photocopy of a document purported to be an MoU, during the pendency of the petition - invocation of provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- This Bench is of the opinion that provisions of section 340 would not apply to the facts of this case, as this MoU did not form the basis of any adjudication. To initiate prosecution, it is essential that the decision is based on a fabricated document and the Court having relied upon the same has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Since the alleged fabricated MoU was not a basis of adjudication, no enquiry is required under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The CA under 340 Cr.P.C. is dismissed - Be listed before the Id. Registrar on 25th February, 2020 for enquiring whether the photocopy of the MoU given to the IO is different from the one filed by the Petitioner. Issues: Alleged fabrication of documents, Misleading the court, Invocation of Section 340 Cr.P.C.The judgment by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, addresses the issue of alleged fabrication of documents during the pendency of a petition. The petitioner's counsel pointed out discrepancies in a photocopy of an MoU, suggesting fabrication. The respondents argued that the differences were due to compression and maintained the document's integrity. The Tribunal directed the matter to be listed before the Registrar for further investigation into the allegations of document fabrication.Another issue raised was the accusation of misleading the court by deliberately filing a false document. The petitioner claimed that the MoU in question was fabricated and predated, with one signatory deceased at the supposed time of execution. Additionally, information from an RTI application revealed irregularities in the stamp paper used. The Tribunal, however, concluded that Section 340 Cr.P.C. did not apply in this case since the alleged MoU did not influence any adjudication. As the document was not foundational to any decision, the Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of document integrity and the consequences of misleading the court. The Tribunal emphasized the need for factual basis in legal proceedings and dismissed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. due to the lack of influence of the allegedly fabricated document on the adjudication. The matter was referred to the Registrar for further investigation into the differences in the photocopies of the MoU, ensuring transparency and accuracy in the legal process.