TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e a little focus on the core controversy to facilitate us to dispose of the present application. 2. The petitioner complains that without his knowledge and by fabrication of documents, he was removed from his directorship under the alleged minutes of the Board dated 01.09.2007 and on the same day a resignation letter was pressed into service as if he had tendered resignation to the directorship. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner 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that he had not tendered resignation, nor did he sold or transferred his shares to the second respondent or did he had withdrawn the consideration from the Bank by either signing or affixing his thumb mark on the receipts or vouchers.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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....men left thumb impression of Shri Pawan Tiwari i.e. petitioner herein The other report shows that the comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures obtained in the Court 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 following grounds, as cull out from the present application. (i) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 are liable for rejection? Point: The area of controversy in this company application is limited to the extent of deciding whether there is necessity of 'rejecting' the CFSL reports. This question takes us to make reference as to what is the relevancy and evidentiary value of....