Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: backdating in M/S. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd vs R.Krishnamurthy on 29 November, 2013Matching Fragments
3. During the pendency of the said suit, Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1400 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner / D1 under Order 26 Rules 10A and 10B, seeking appointment of Advocate-commissioner to take possession of the original Minutes Book of the Board of Directors of the appellant company and deliver the same to the Forensic Department of the State of Tamil Nadu and secure a report, to find out whether or not the last three lines at page 87 and last two lines of page 93 of the Minutes Book purporting to be minutes of the Board Meeting of the applicant company held on 30.03.2005 and 23.05.2005 respectively were interpolated or fudged or forged or backdated.
5. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that in the Board's Resolution, dated 30.03.2005 of the petitioner company, as incorporated in the Minutes Book at pages 87-90, a portion has been deliberately incorporated and backdated with malafide intention, though the applicant company had never passed such resolution and on that ground, seeking an order for appointment of Commissioner, in order to ascertain expert opinion.
6. It is seen from the accompanying affidavit pertaining to the Interlocutory Application, that the petitioner herein is stated as Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., and the deponent has described himself as the Managing Director of the applicant, however, he could have signed on behalf of the Public Limited Company, a legal person, by affixing the seal of the company. It being an affidavit filed in the name of a Public Limited Company, the deponent could have fixed the seal of the company, stating that the company is represented by its Managing Director. However, the reasons best known to the petitioner, the seal of the company is not available therein, only C.R.Sethuramalingam, S/o. C.Rangasamy Chettiar, stating himself as Managing Director of the applicant, in the inner portion of the affidavit has signed.
7. In the affidavit, it is stated that in the minutes of the company, the following portion has been interpolated or fudged or forged or backdated, which reads as follows :
"The Chairman informed the Board the strategic investor has entered into an Agreement of sale, dated 10-01-2004 with one R.Krishnamurthy to discharge the debts and has sought for ratification-so ratified."
The affidavit further reads that as per the Plaint Document No.IV, identical similar interpolation of words "4.Chitrahar Traders Rs.50,00,000 (Sale of Machineries of "A" mill only) has been made in the Minutes Book at Page 93 in relation to the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of the company held on 23.05.05 recorded at pages 91 to 97.