Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide on document authenticity & share transfer. Petitioner advised civil court route.

The Tribunal dismissed the Petition as it lacked jurisdiction to decide on the authenticity of documents and transfer of shares due to highly disputed facts. The Petitioner was advised to pursue relief through a Civil Court for resolving the issues related to the acknowledged payment and disputed share transfer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Petitioner has given consideration for transfer of shares into his name.
2. Whether the questions raised by the parties with regard to genuineness of the documents can be decided by this Tribunal and whether the reliefs sought for can be granted.
3. To what result.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Whether the Petitioner has given consideration for transfer of shares into his name.

The Petitioner claims to have paid Rs. 15,44,000/- to Respondent No. 2 for shares, loans, and other counts, and asserts that Respondent No. 2 acknowledged this payment in a letter dated 10.06.2014. The Respondents admit that the Petitioner paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as part consideration for 40% shares, but dispute the authenticity of the letter, alleging it was fabricated using blank letterheads signed by Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal notes that the Petitioner was managing the company's affairs and acknowledges the possibility that the letterheads were given to facilitate operations. However, the Tribunal concludes that determining the authenticity of the letter requires evidence, which falls outside its jurisdiction.

II. Whether the questions raised by the parties with regard to genuineness of the documents can be decided by this Tribunal and whether the reliefs sought for can be granted.

The Tribunal examines whether it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and misrepresentation. Citing relevant case law, including judgments from the Supreme Court and the Company Law Board, the Tribunal highlights that such disputes involving highly contested facts are not suitable for summary jurisdiction and should be addressed by a Civil Court. The Tribunal refers to the Supreme Court judgment in *Aruna Oswal vs. Pankaj Oswal & Ors.*, emphasizing that issues of right, title, and interest in securities should be resolved by a Civil Court to avoid jeopardizing parties' rights. It also cites the *Tarsen Kansil vs. Dev Spinners Ltd.* case, where the Supreme Court directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of similar disputes.

III. To what result.

Based on the findings under the first two points, the Tribunal concludes that it lacks the jurisdiction to decide the questions raised in the Petition. It dismisses the Petition, noting that the Petitioner can recover the admitted amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- by filing an appropriate application before the appropriate forum. The Tribunal emphasizes that the highly disputed questions of fact regarding the share transfer and the authenticity of the documents require a detailed examination of evidence, which is beyond its purview.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismisses the Petition, stating that the issues raised involve highly disputed questions of fact that require adjudication by a Civil Court. The Petitioner is advised to seek relief through appropriate legal channels for the recovery of the admitted amount and resolution of the disputed share transfer.

---