Channel Foods Private Limited & Ors vs Mr. A.K. Nowshad

[Arising out of Order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench in TIA No. 102/KOB/2020 in T.C.P. 8/KOB/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Channel Foods Private Limited Amritha Towers, K.P.C.C. Jn, M.G. Road, Cochin - 682011. ...Appellant No. 1 Mr. Jaleel Hussain 2. S/o. Shamsudhin, Kaniyamparambil House, Puthanangady Ward, Alappuzha, Kerala - 688001. ...Appellant No. 2

3. A.K. Mansoor, S/o. A.V. Ahmed Kutty, Chathunakayil House, Puthumanasery, Pvarthy - 680507, Trichur - Kerala. ...Appellant No. 3

4. G. Joseph & Associates, Chartered Accountants, 37/2003, First Floor, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 ...Appellant No. 4

Versus

Mr. A.K. Nowshad S/o A.V. Ahmed Kutty, Puthumanasery, Pavaratty - 680507 Trichur - Kerala ...Respondent

Present: For Appellants : Mr. Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, Senior Advocate. For Mr. A.M. Sridharan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. R. Venkatavardan, Advocate. For Mr. Kaushik N Sharma, Advocate. TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 1 of 20

(Virtual Mode) (14.11.2022)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

The present `Appeal' is filed against the 'impugned order' dated

13.10.2020 passed in TIA No. 102/KOB/2020 in T.C.P 8/KOB/2019 by the

National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, whereby, the Tribunal

dismissed the Petition, filed under the Companies Act, 2013.

Brief Facts:

2. The present `Appeal' has been preferred under Section 421 of the

Companies Act, 2013 against the order of the `Tribunal' dated 13.10.2020 in

TIA No. 102/KOB/2020 in TCP/8/KOB/2019.

3. The 3rd Appellant and the Respondent are real brothers, Non-resident

Indians and the only shareholders of the 1st Appellant Company. In march

2018, the 'Respondent' filed a company petition in the Tribunal alleging

oppression and mismanagement of the Company. The Petition was

numbered as CP 12 of 2018 and in September 2018, the 'Respondent' filed

MA/247/2018 for forensic investigation on the signatures of the

'Respondent' on three documents i.e. (i) a Power of Attorney dated

31.07.2006, (ii) the financial statements of the Company for 2013-14 and (iii)

the financial statements of the Company for 2014-15. Pleadings were

completed in the company petition and in the applications. The NCLT,

Chennai Bench directed the company petition and the applications to be

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 2 of 20 taken up for hearing together. However, in the meantime, one new bench of

the Tribunal at Kochi was constituted and CP No. 12 of 2018 and MA

No. 247 of 2018 were transferred to Kochi Bench and were renumbered as

TCP/8/KOB/2018 and TIA No. 102/KOB/2020 respectively.

4. On 13.10.2020, NCLT, Kochi Bench passed orders in TIA No.

102/KOB/2020 directing (i) the Power of Attorney dated 31.07.2006, (ii) the

financial statements for 2013-14, (iii) the financial statements for 2014-15

and also (iv) two PAN cards of the 'Respondent' to be sent for forensic

examination for comparing the respondent's signatures appearing in these

documents.

5. Hence, the present `Appeal', before this Appellate Tribunal.

Appellants' Submissions:

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants refuted all the allegations of

forgery and opposed the 'Impugned Order' dated 13.10.2020. The Learned

Counsel for the Appellants stated that they are not shying away from forensic

examination of the signatures. However, the 'Respondent' has not laid any

foundation for forensic examination. The respondent has not pleaded forgery

of the documents. Hence, forensic examination of the documents is not

necessary for a decision on the main company petition. The Learned Counsel

for the Respondent referred to Rule 43 (3) NCLT Rules which requires

fundamental conditions, namely:- "raises the issue of forgery" or "fabrication

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 3 of 20 of any statutory records". The Learned Counsel for the Appellants

emphasised that in the present appeal neither of these conditions is satisfied.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants pleaded that it is

apprehension that the respondent will misuse the order for forensic

examination to cause prejudice in the Dubai litigation and extensive damage

will be caused even before the forensic report is received. The Learned

Counsel for the Appellants therefore emphasised that 'Impugned Order' need

to be set aside in order to protect the rights of Appellant keeping in view the

principals of natural justice.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that the 'Respondent'

did not plead forgery of his signatures in the financial statements for 2013-

14, the financial statements for 2014-15 and his two PAN cards in the main

company petition and in the application. The Learned Counsel for the

Appellants further pointed out that the 'Respondent' did not plead forgery of

his signature in the "Power of Attorney" dated 31.07.2006 in the main

company petition. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants, therefore, urged

to set aside the 'Impugned Order' giving such directions which are not even

pleaded in the main petition. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants

pointed out that the main petition is still pending before the Tribunal and in

the fitness of things, the Tribunal should dispose off the main petition on

merit rather than getting such forensic audit done.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants pointed out that the main

company petition does not contain any specific allegations of forgery of the

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 4 of 20 financial statements for the years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Learned Counsel

for the Appellants stated that the 'Respondent' only made sweeping

allegations of forgery of all the financial statements. The Learned Counsel

for the Appellants further stated that as regards financial statement for the

year 2014-15 the respondent 'only pleaded in the petition that the signatures

do not match, and not of forgery, without even attaching the financial

statement for the year 2013-14 as a document with the petition.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants pointed out that the

'Respondent' sent a letter dated 06.02.2018 sent to the 1st Appellant

company immediately after the auditor's letter and the 'Respondent' did not

allege forgery of the financial statements in this letter and only questioned

the appointment of the 2nd Appellant as a director without involving the

'Respondent' and therefore terming decision as invalid and not binding on

company.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants pointed out that the

'Respondent' has not alleged any financial misappropriation or that the

financial statements do not reflect a true and fair picture of the affairs of the

company for the years 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the company petition. The

Learned Counsel for the Appellants pleaded that even on this ground,

forensic examination of the documents is not necessary for a decision on the

main company petition.

12. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that it is a matter of

fact that signature do vary from time to time. The Learned Counsel for the TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 5 of 20 Appellants further mentioned that same is true for the ''Respondent'

signature also as seen in PAN Cards as well as in the financial statements.

It is therefore not proper to single out signature of Appellants to be treated

as forged rather than treated as normal variation of signature which could

have been dealt with by the Tribunal in due course while finalising the

Company Petition which is still pending.

13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants emphasised that the Forensic

investigation of the signatures may not be appropriate having regard to the

enormous variation in the admitted signatures and the 'Respondent' is

falsely claiming forgery, taking advantage of the variation in his signatures.

14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants mentioned that the Tribunal

cannot ask to furnish present signature for comparison as contained in Para-

17 of the 'Impugned Order' alleging that this would set wrong precedent as

now the 'Respondent' will deliberately sign in a manner different from his

signatures in the other documents.

15. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants also citated few judgments in

favour of his arguments: (1) Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC

148 para. 77 & 85.66 (2) Shanti Budhiya vs Nirmala Jayaprakash AIR

2010 SC 2132 para. 32 & 33 (3) Bishindeo Narain vs Seogeni Rai (2017)

204 Com Cas 533 (Bom) para. 120 & 121.

16. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants concluded his arguments

with request that the appeal may be allowed and the 'Impugned Order' may

be set aside.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 6 of 20 Respondent's Submissions:

17. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent mentioned that the appeal is

without any merit and is an abuse of process of law which is meant only to

derail the main petition and continue operation and mismanagement by the

majority shareholders of the minority shareholder.

18. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent emphasised that the Tribunal

gave the 'Impugned Order' correctly after taking into account all the facts

and legal position into consideration. The Learned Counsel for the

Respondent refuted all the averments made by the 'Appellants' especially

averments made that the 'Respondent' had not pleaded forgery of signature

of Appellants in his main petition. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent

further stated that he has given para wise counter of the all-wrong averments

made by the 'Appellants' and maintained that all his arguments and request

including alleged forgery by the 'Appellants' which were mentioned in the

original company petition which is still pending before the Tribunal.

19. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent assailed the conduct of the

'Appellants' which according to him is evident from delaying tactics and as a

result the 'Impugned Order' dated 13.10.2020 could not be implemented

even after more than two years which is only for verification of records and

signatures. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent pleaded strongly that

the appeal should be set aside with cost.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021

7 of 20

20. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent emphasised that he had

made out a clear case for referring the following documents for forensic

examination:

"a. Financial Statements of Channel Foods Pvt. Ltd., for the FY

2013-14

b. Financial Statements of Channel Foods Pvt. Ltd., for the FY

2014-15

c. Power of Attorney dated 31.07.2006."

21. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent emphasised that the

'Respondent' had invoked the provisions of Rule 43 (3) of the NCLT Rules,

2016 for referring the documents to forensic examination. The Learned

Counsel for the Respondent stated that as the signatures of the 'Respondent'

did not tally with his original signature and since appellants had also

confirmed the variation in the signatures, the need and necessity to refer the

documents was clearly established. The application filed by the 'Respondent'

in TIA/102/KOB/2020 in TCP/8/KOB/2019 was heard at length by the

Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application directing the 'Appellants' to

produce the original financial statements for the FY 2013- 14, 2014-15.

Further, directions were also issued to the Respondent to produce the Power

of Attorney dated 31.07.2006 and also to produce the original PAN Cards

bearing nos. ASEPK5529M and AFWPN7566B and directions were issued to

the Respondent to execute his specimen signatures before the Deputy

Registrar of the Tribunal.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 8 of 20

22. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent mentioned that the

'Appellant' has inter-alia alleged on the grounds that the respondent had not

pleaded forgery in the Company Petition which is contrary to the facts on

record. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent emphasised that in the

main Company Petition, in paragraphs (o) to (s), the 'Respondent' had

elaborated on the forgery of the financial statements. As far as the Power of

Attorney is concerned, forgery regarding the same could be raised only in the

application since this forged document was submitted by the 'Appellants' in

the Counter. This apart, the 'Respondent' had also specifically pleaded

forgery in the three documents mentioned earlier. In fact, the 'Appellant' had

also admitted that the signature in the financial statements varies and had

alleged that the respondent is in the habit using different signatures at

different point of time. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that

it is the 'Appellant' who had referred to the PAN cards by making false

allegations against the 'Respondent'. The Learned Counsel for the

Respondent clarified that as the Tribunal was satisfied that the signature of

the 'Respondent' in the PAN card, which was a fabrication indulged in by the

'Appellant', also did not tally with the original signature of the 'Respondent',

the Tribunal directed this also to be referred for forensic examination. The

Learned Counsel for the Respondent emphasised that there is absolutely no

merits in the appeal which is against the 'Impugned Order' of the Tribunal

which is merely enabling a fact- finding enquiry.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 9 of 20

23. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the

'Respondent' had complied with the directions of the Tribunal by executing

specimen signatures, handing over the original PAN card bearing No.

AFWPN7566B which was the one in possession of the 'Respondent' and

payment of the requisite costs for forensic examination. However, the PAN

card bearing No. ASPEK5529M is in possession of the 'Appellant' and, the

'Appellant' has not complied with the same. The Learned Counsel for the

Respondent stated that the 'Respondent' had also filed an application before

the Tribunal seeking to amend the 'Impugned Order' by way of Application

M.A.No.209/KOB/2020 in TCP/8/KOB/2019 which is currently pending

before the Tribunal.

24. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent emphasised that the

'Impugned Order' of the Tribunal was to only to determine whether the

signatures of the 'Respondent' were forged on statutory documents such as

Financial Statements FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 and Power of Attorney dated

31.07.2006 which in turn would determine the outcome of the Company

Petitions TCP/8/KOB/2019 and TCP/11/KOB/2019 filed under Section

241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Learned Counsel for the

Respondent drew attention of the Appellate Tribunal by quoting the relevant

para of the 'Impugned Order' which reads as under:

``7. 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

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 10 of 20 purpose, in exercises 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 the Applicant, Power of Attorney executed on 31.07.2006, in order to set a Correct picture in the matter."

25. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that above

observations made by the Tribunal, clearly shows that the forgery in respect

of documents needs to be investigated and no prejudice would be caused to

the 'Appellants' by the forensic examination of documents. The Learned

Counsel for the Respondent emphasised that the very fact that the

'Appellants' are resisting strongly a simple forensic examination establishes

that the signatures of the 'Respondent' have been forged and by the

'Appellants'.

26. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that that while the

'Respondent' has complied with the said order including the payment of the

statutory fees as stipulated under the 'Impugned Order', the 'Appellants'

have not even bothered to produce the original Financial Statements for the

FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 even though there is no stay on the Impugned

Order by this Appellate Tribunal.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 11 of 20

27. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the

'Appellants' have been continuously mentioning that the signature mismatch

is due to the alleged habit of the 'Respondent' of signing his signatures

differently in different document and the same is being highlighted by

referring to the two PAN Cards bearing No. ASPEK5529M and No.

AFWPN7566B. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent further pointed out

the Appellants also referred to the variation that exist in the signatures of

the Respondent between the Financial Statements and the pleadings that

were signed. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that prima

facie it is clear that there is a variation in the signature, and it would only

aid the Tribunal in arriving at an informed decision on the issue of forgery if

the documents in question are sent to forensic examination before deciding

in main company petition.

28. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent concluded that the present

Appeal may be dismissed with cost and further direct the 'Appellants' to

forthwith submit the original Power of Attorney dated 31.07.2006, PAN Card

bearing No.ASPEK5529M, original signed balance sheets of Channel Foods

Pvt. Ltd., for the FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the Tribunal in order to

Commence the forensic examination as directed by the Tribunal in the

'Impugned Order'.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 12 of 20 Findings

29. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondent and

also perused record made available to us. Few issues in are required to be

deliberated upon before coming to final conclusion.

(I) Whether NCLT can order for production of documentary evidence and

for forensic examination under section 424, Companies Act 2013 read with

rule 43 of the NCLT Rules?

(II) Whether the 'Respondent' had pleaded forgery of his signatures and

documents in main company petition?

Issue No. (I): Whether NCLT can order for production of documentary

evidence and for forensic examination under section 424, Companies

Act 2013 read with rule 43 of the NCLT Rules?

a) It will be necessary to refer to the relevant Section of the Companies

Act, 2013 and NCLT Rules, 2016.

"Rule 43 of NCLT Rules, 2016

Power of the Bench to call for further information or evidence. -

(1) The Bench may, before passing orders on the petition or application, require the parties or any one or more of them, to produce such further documentary or other evidence as it may consider necessary:-

(a) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the truth of the allegations made in the petition or application; or

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 13 of 20

(b) for ascertaining any information which, in the opinion of the Bench, is necessary for the purpose of enabling it to pass orders in the petition or application.

(2) Without prejudice to sub-rule (1), the Bench may, for the purpose of inquiry or investigation, as the case may be, admit such documentary and other mode of recordings in electronic form including e-mails, books of accounts, book or paper, written communications, statements, contracts, electronic certificates and such other similar mode of transactions as may legally be permitted to take into account of those as admissible as evidence under the relevant laws.

(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."

[emphasis supplied]

"Section 424 Of Companies Act

Procedure before Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal

(1) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not, while disposing of any proceeding before it or, as the case may be, an appeal before it, be bound by the procedure

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 14 of 20 laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have power to regulate their own procedure.

(2) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or a copy of such record or document from any office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;

(f) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;

(g) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and

(h) any other matter which may be prescribed.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 15 of 20 (3) Any order made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may be enforced by that Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a court in a suit pending therein, and it shall be lawful for the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to send for execution of its orders to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--

a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the is situate; or

(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

(4) All proceedings before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 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).

[emphasis supplied]

b) It is therefore clear from the reading of above provisions of law that the

Tribunal exercising the statutory powers conferred on it under rule 43

of NCLT Rules 2016 and that of under Section 424 of Companies Act

2013 can ask the parties to produce documentary or other evidence as

it may consider necessary to meet the ends of natural justice.

c) The Rule 43 (1),(2) & (3) of NCLT Rules 2016 clearly states that for the

purpose of satisfying itself as to the truth of the allegations made, for

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 16 of 20 ascertaining any information which in the opinion of the Tribunal is

necessary for the purpose of enabling it to pass orders and 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 Tribunal hearing the

matter can allow the petition if it think so. Therefore, in the present

case the Tribunal has relied on the above mentioned sections to order

forensic investigation of the signature and other documents.

d) Similarly in the present case because the 'Respondent's' signatures did

not match his original signature, and because the 'Appellants' also

corroborated the variance in signatures, it was necessary for the

Tribunal to verify the signatures and the documents. It has been made

out by the 'Appellants' that the 'Respondent' did not plead forgery in

the Company Petition. This, however, does not collaborate with the

record made available and this Appellate Tribunal notes that the

'Respondent' elaborated on the forging of financial accounts in the

main Company Petition, in paragraphs (o) to (s). In fact, the

'Appellants' agreed that the signature in the financial statements

varies and claimed that the respondent had a practise of using

multiple signatures at different times. Therefore, it is clear that there

existed the issue of forgery/ signature difference, intentionally or

unintentionally, and the Tribunal was not out of line while

adjudicating on the same as pleaded by the Appellant in its appeal by

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 17 of 20 allowing referring relevant signature and financial statements as

elaborated in the 'Impugned Order' for forensic examination by Central

Forensic Science Laboratory at the cost of party allegation fabrication

on record.

e) This Appellate Tribunal also notes that this is only fact finding exercise

and do not in any way affect the rights of Appellant or give special

privileges to the 'Respondents'. It is also observed that the main

company petition is still pending and the 'Impugned Order' dated

13.10.2020 has not been implemented till date. Therefore, the

Appellate Tribunal do not find any error in the 'Impugned Order' in

this regard and hold that the Tribunal has sufficient power to refer the

case for forensic examination and ask for production of documentary

evidence as per power delegated under NCLT Rules, 2016 and

Companies Act, 2013.

Issue No. (II) Whether the 'Respondent' had pleaded forgery of his

signatures and documents in main company petition?

a) The Appellant has contended, inter-alia, that the 'Respondent' did not

plead forgery in the main company petition. This plea contradicts the

facts on the record. The respondent elaborated on the forging of

financial accounts in the main Company Petition, in paragraphs (o) to

(s). In fact, the appellant agreed that the signature in the financial

statements varies and claimed that the respondent had a practise of

using multiple signatures at different times.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 18 of 20

b) This Appellate Tribunal also notes from the averments made by the

'Respondent' that in the case of the 'Power of Attorney', forgery could

only be challenged in the application because the fake document was

submitted by the appellant in the Counter. Apart from this, the

'Respondent' specifically pleaded forgery in the three documents stated

above. In reality, the 'Appellant' agreed that the signature in the

financial statements varies and claimed that the respondent had a

practise of using multiple signatures at different times.

c) This Appellate Tribunal notes that the Tribunal has exercised the

powers vested in it under Rule 424 of Companies Act, 2013, being

guided on the principals of natural justice in order to ascertain the

correctness of documents. Similarly, the Tribunal exercising powers

under Rule 43 of NCLT Rule 2016 and under Section 424 of companies

Act, 2013 requiring production of documents as being necessary has

called upon original financial statements for the period 2013-14 and

2014-15 signed by Board of Directors, PAN Cards, Power of Attorney

executed on 31.07.2006, which were required to be sent to "Central

Forensic Science Laboratory" in order to has a clear correct picture.

This Appellate Tribunal observe that the Tribunal has taken decision

before taking of the main company petition still pending before the

Tribunal. This Appellate Tribunal do not find any error on this ground

also.

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 19 of 20

30. This `Appellate Tribunal' notes three Citations quoted by the

'Appellants', but do not find directly relevant looking into the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

31. In view of the aforesaid deliberations and reasons, this `Appellate

Tribunal' does not find any error in the 'impugned order' dated 13.10.2020,

passed in TIA No. 102/KOB/2020 in T.C.P. 8/KOB/2019. The `Appeal'

being `devoid of any merits', is set aside and therefore stands `dismissed'. No

costs. The connected pending `Interlocutory Applications', if any, are Closed.

[Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Simran

TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2020) & I.A. No. 685 of 2021 20 of 20