2019 (6) TMI 1545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 28/2019 stated that as per the order of this Tribunal made in CA No. 391/2018, the following documents have been furnished to the applicant: a) All the documents for proving cancellation of the MOU and forfeiture of advance amount by the Associated Cement Company Limited; b) The audited books being maintained Respondent/applicant under section 44 of the Income Tax act along with all the income tax documents; c) Proof of making payment of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- by the 1st Respondent/Applicant to the Company in the month of June 2006; d) The proof to substantiate that there was a genuine loan transaction of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- taken place in the month of June, 200G. e) The proof that the said loan transaction indeed sanctioned and approved and admitted by an authentic board resolution; f) The proof to substantiate that the alleged allotment letter dated 22.01.2007 is indeed sanctioned and approved and admitted by authentic board resolution. 2. The applicant submitted that the said documents were furnished to the Applicant on 01.11.2018 and on the same day the argument was commenced without giving time to scrutinize the documents by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provides for recording evidence. The scope of the cross examination is very limited and narrow. Though the cross examination of witness is a matter of right while adjudication of suit before a Civil Court but the same does not apply to adjudication of Petitions before NCLT. The Cross Examination of the witness is at discretion of this Tribunal. c) The proceedings before NCLT is a summary proceeding. The Tribunal has to adjudicate the issues on the basis of affidavits produced by the parties. In the rarest of rare case, the Tribunal order cross examination of witnesses to meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal may ignore the frivolous disputes and defences raised by the Respondents raised with the fraudulent intention of delaying the outcome of the proceedings. If the Tribunal allows these type of applications, the purpose of the statute of enacting speedy disposal by the mechanism will be defeated. d) The Applicant sought production of original documents. When the original documents are produced, this Applicant hasn't disputed the existence of the letter dated 21.06.2006. This demonstrates that the Applicant is confused or involved in fraudulent practices. Mor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. The Respondent No. 1/Petitioner No. 1, Respondent No. 58/Respondent No. 48 and Respondent No. 25/Respondent No. 27 filed counters inter-alia stating that the Applicants have filed this application along with another application (i.e. IA. No. 30/2019) for eschewing documents in CP. No. 3/2008 (TP. No. 147/HDB/2016). Since, he had filed some documents in both the cases as the issues and parties are also common and his counter to this present application is the same as of his counter filed to I.A. No. 30/2019 and prayed this Hon'ble Tribunal to treat the same as his counter to the present Application. 7. The contesting respondents in the application inter-alia stated that the applicants are falsely raising doubts regarding admissibility of these documents by making application under section 65B of the Evidence Act though the section is not applicable to the said documents. The applicants have also not proved to demonstrate a fit case for eschewing the said documents and therefore they have prayed for the dismissal of the Application. 8. Heard both sides and perused records/documents filed by both sides in all the applications. 9. With regard to IA No. 28/2019 and 33/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty. 12. A conjoint reading of the above provisions makes it clear that strict rules of pleading and proof of the standards of civil courts are not required to be applied to proceedings before the Tribunal, and that they should be guided primarily by the principles of natural justice. 13. In Union of India Vs. Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 - the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while courts are governed by detailed statutory procedural rules, in particular the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act, requiring an elaborate procedure in decision making, Tribunals generally regulate their own procedure applying the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure only where it is required, and without being restricted by the strict rules of Evidence Act (Para 14(iii) of the Judgment). 14. An analysis of above makes it clear that a discretion is conferred on the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure and be guided by the principles of natural justice. 15. While answering these issues raised in IA. No. 28/2019 and 33/2019, I consider it just and necessary that evidence should be led to ascertain the authenticity of the documents produced vide IA No. 390/2018. Estab....