TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chi Bench, this case was transferred to this Bench and MA/247/2018 was renumbered as TIA/102/KOB/2020 and the Company Petition C.P.No.12 of 2018 was renumbered as TCP/8/KOB/2019. The facts in brief are as follows: The Applicant/ Petitioner is one of the promoters and Directors of the 1st Respondent Company- Channel Foods Pvt. Ltd. which is a private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Amritha Towers, K.P.C.C Jn. M.G. Road, Cochin. 3. The petitioner, who is the applicant herein, had filed a Company Petition C.P.No.12 of 2018 before NCLT, Chennai Bench under Section 241, 242 and 244 of Companies Act, 2013 alleging oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents against the Applicant, the minority shareholder which was transferred and renumbered by this Tribunal as TCP/8/KOB/2019. The petitioner in TCP prayed for a declaration of the appointment of Mr. Jaleel Hussain, the 2nd Respondent, as illegal and invalid, and to declare that the Annual General Meeting for the Financial Years 2014- 15 and 2015-16 of the 1st Respondent Company as illegal and invalid and also appoint an independent auditor for the purpose of auditing the finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents relating to AGMs or its attendance sheets. The initial burden of proving that the signatures were not of his and the AGMs were not held lies on the applicant. The counsel for the respondents further stated that the petitioner in the TCP only pleaded that his signatures in the Articles and Memorandum of Association of the 1st Respondent Company and the signatures, in the financial statements for the years 2014-15 do not match and also admitted that the signatures in the financial statements of the 1st Respondent Company for the years 2014-15 are his signatures which lead to an inference that those signatures do not match with the signatures in the Articles and Memorandum of Association of the 1st Respondent Company. The Articles and Memorandum of Association were also signed by him as he admitted that the 1st respondent company was incorporated by 3rd respondent along with the applicant. Respondents hence stated that the applicant has the habit of putting different signatures on different documents at different points of time, taking into account the two original PANCARDS wherein the applicant's signatures differ is an emphatic assertion that the applicant only signed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grity and bona-fide. 11. They further stated that the applicant/petitioner admitted in his Rejoinder dated 16.04.2018 to the Counter on Interim reliefs that the Power of Attorney (POA) was executed for signing banking instruments. After admitting the POA in the above rejoinder, the applicant subsequently filed this application contending that his signature in the POA executed on 31.07.2006 is forged. The applicant at the hearing held on 17.09.2020 once again admitted the signature in the POA and submitted that he is withdrawing the allegations in relation to POA and his prayer for sending the POA for forensic examination may be treated as dismissed. 12. During the argument on 17.09.2020, the learned counsel for the applicant relied heavily on the letter dated 30.01.2018 addressed to Statutory Auditor, M/s. G. Joseph & Associates, and alleged that his signatures in financial documents seem to be forged and he was not present during the date mentioned in the report. But the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the year or period of the financial statements is not mentioned in the said letter. Hence, the allegation is vague. The financial statements are not signed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thereafter, I received a confirmation from Mr. Nowshad through a, messenger and filed DIR 12 on 23/12/2016." Considering the signature in the Financial Statements and the two PAN cards of the applicant and also perusing the letter dated 23.04.2018 sent by the Company Secretary, this Tribunal finds that there is a difference in the signature of the applicant. Hence, this tribunal is of the opinion that a forensic verification is necessary before disposing of the Company Petition- TCP/8/KOB/2019. 15. In this connection, Rule 43 (3) of the NCLT Rules is quoted below: "43. Power of the Bench to call for further information or evidence. - (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) Where any party preferring or contesting a petition of oppression and mismanagement raises the issue of forgery or fabrication of any statutory records, then it shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for forensic examination and the Bench hearing the matter may, for reasons to be recorded, either allow the application and send the disputed records for opinion of Central Forensic Science Laboratory at the cost of the party alleging fabrication of records, or dismiss such application." 16. Section 424 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 196 of the Penal Code, 1860, and the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be Civil Court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)." 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the view that the ends of natural justice would be met if all the facts that could have a bearing on the issues before us, must be brought on record. For this purpose, in exercise of the statutory powers conferred on this Tribunal under Rule 43 of the NCLT Rules 2016 and also under Section 424 of Companies Act 2013, requiring the production of documents, it is deemed necessary to call for necessary documents such as, the original audited Financial Statements for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 signed by the Board of Directors, PAN Cards of applicant, Power of Attorney executed on 31.07.2006, in order to set a correct picture in the matter. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Tribunal hereby direct the Respondent No.1 Company to produce the original audited Financial Statements of the 1st Respondent company for the Financial Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. The applicant is also directed to produce the....