National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Channel Foods Private Limited & Ors vs Mr. A.K. Nowshad on 14 November, 2022
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
TA No. 53/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) No. 237/2020)
&
I.A. No. 685 of 2021
[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
J U D G M E N T
(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