Ashok Manchanda vs Rajesh Manchanda

In the matter of: Ashok Manchanda & Anr Appellant

Vs

Rajesh Manchanda & Ors Respondent

For Appellant:Mr Sangram Patnaik, Mr Prateek Gupta, Mr Raghav Tiwari, Ms Vishakha Kaushik, Mr Dilshad Ahmed, Ms Isha Jaiswal, Advocates. For Respondent:Mr. Arun Saxena, Mr Amit Verma, Advocates.

ORDER

HYBRID MODE

22.08.2025: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 30.06.2025

passed by the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi in CP No.29(ND)/2008. It is the submission

of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order is passed without any

reasoning and is contrary to earlier orders passed by the same Bench. Learned

counsel for the appellant refers to the following paras of the impugned order as

under:-

10.Subsequently the matter was transferred to this Tribunal.

The arguments of the Ld. Counsel appearing for both the parties were heard at length by this Tribunal on the issue of leading evidences in rebuttal/cross examination of the deponent.

11. Ld. Counsel appearing for Applicant as well as the Respondent submitted that the cross-examination of the deponent is very much essential in view of the dispute relating to the signatures of the party in question. In this regard, we may note that on the directions of the Hon'ble Company Law Board, the letter was referred to CFSL and the report was obtained wherein the CFSL opined that it is not possible to say whether the printed material on the document has been printed and the signature of Mrs. Poonam Manchanda already existed.

12. We may further note that the Hon'ble Company Law Board vide order dated 26.08.2014 has observed that both the parties 2

are at liberty to lead evidence by affidavit. Pursuant to the said directions, both the parties have filed the affidavit.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that leading of evidence or cross- examination of any of the parties will not serve any useful purpose for determination of the issues involved, particularly in view of the report submitted by the CFSL. Therefore, we direct that the main matter be heard on merits.

2. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant took us

to an order dated 26th August, 2014 wherein on perusal of the CFSL Report dated

14.02.2014, the Company Law Board noted that para 2 of such report clearly

expresses inability to opine upon the issue whether the matter on the letter dated

01.05.2006 was printed on a blank paper, containing signature of Mrs Poonam

Manchanda.

3. Thus the issue is whether the contents in the letter dated 01.05.2006 were

printed on a blank signed document. The Company Law Board on 26.08.2014

had passed the following order:-

A perusal of the order dated 19.7.2013 clearly shows that Shri ArunSaxena Chartered Accountant representing the Petitioners had, on instructions admitted that letter dated 1/5/2006 bears the signature of Smt. Poonam Manchanda. In view of the said admission the burden heavily lies upon the Petitioners to prove the following:-

(a) Signature of Mrs. Poonam Manchanda were obtained on a blank paper. (b) From whose custody the document containing the blank signature of Mrs. Poonam Manchanda went to the custody of the Respondents.

(c) The contents of letter dated 1/5/2006 [Annexure Dl were printed while the signature of Mrs. Poonam Manchanda existed on a blank paper.

The respondents are also entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal and in support of Annexure D dated 1.5.2006.

4. This order was carried forward vide order dated 18.02.2020 as under:- 3

"Counsels for both the sides are present. The Counsel for the petitioner is directed to keep the deponents who have filed the affidavits present for the purpose of cross-examination by the Respondents."

5. The said order was further reiterated on 28.01.2021 and further on

07.09.2022, the following order was passed by the same Bench:-

Heard Mr. Arun Saxena, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sangram Patnaik, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent.

This Tribunal vide order dated 18.2.2020 had passed the following order :

"Counsels for both the sides are present. The Counsel for the Petitioner is directed to keep the deponents who have filed the Affidavits present for the purpose of cross- examination by the Respondents.

List on 25 March, 2020".

Accordingly, we direct the deponents who have filed the affidavits to remain present for the purpose of cross- examination by the respondents. List on 22.11.2022.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant next referred to the order dated

03.06.2024 of the same Bench which noted as follows:-

Mr. Sangram Pattnaik, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that this Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 18.02.2020 by which the Deponent who has filed the affidavits was directed to be present in Court for cross examination.

We may indicate that issue regarding cross-examination shall be considered on the next date of hearing.

7. Further on 05.08.2024 the following order was passed by the same Bench:-

Ld. Counsel appearing for Applicant as well as Respondent shall jointly file a compilation of the relevant documents which are required for the purpose of cross-examination as per the order dated 18.02.2020 within two weeks.

4

The presence of deponent on the next date of hearing is dispensed with. List the matter on 23.09.2024.

8. Thus it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that right

from 2014, the view of the Ld.Company Law Board as well as Learned NCLT

presided by the same Bench was the cross examination in respect of three

questions raised in order dated 26.08.2014 was essential but vide the impugned

order the Ld. NCLT, without giving any reasons, has decided otherwise.

9. We have also perused the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, more

specifically its para 13, wherein the Ld. NCLT has held the cross examination of

the parties would not serve any useful purpose for determination of the issues

involved, particularly in view of the report submitted by the CFSL. It is to be

noted all this exercise was conducted only after CFSL report was brought on

record and now after so many years, an order to the contrary is passed and that

too without any cogent reasoning.

10. Hence we set aside the impugned order and we direct the Ld. NCLT to pass

order only after giving reasons, in the light of earlier orders passed by it, which

rather elaborated the need for cross examination in the matter, for the issues

raised.

11. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of.

12. Pending applications are also disposed of.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/md