Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. The second preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, in our view, raises a more substantial issue in the facts of the present case. The question which falls for determination is whether this Board exercising summary jurisdiction under Section 111 can be called upon to decide such complicated questions where allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents and forgery are alleged. This question has come up for consideration before different courts including the Apex Court in the case of Amonia Supplies Corporation (P.) Ltd. (supra). Both the learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on this case. The counsel for the petitioner has sought support from the decision and has submitted that such questions can be decided by this Board if the same falls within the peripheral field of rectification, and discretion lies with this Board whether to take cognizance or refuse the same. Whereas the learned counsel for respondents has submitted that this dispute does not fall within the peripheral field of rectification. It is submitted that the dispute is based on the questions of title and denial of transactions which can only be decided by a civil court. Strong reliance has been placed on paragraph 26 of the aforesaid judgment. The decision of the Apex Court in Amonia Supplies Corporation (P.) Ltd's case (supra) has been elaborately considered and explained by the Bombay High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Glaxo India Ltd. AIR 1999 Bom. 240. It will be worthwhile to quote paragraph 8 of the said decision wherein the judgment of the Apex Court has been discussed as follows :

25. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions in the facts of the present case at hand, it may be noticed that the petitioners were alleging fraudulent transfers, fabrication of documents and forgery in respect of the signatures of the petitioner on the transfer forms and also on the minute books. The respondents have filed Xerox copies of the extracts from minute book of the meetings of the Board of Directors alleging that the petitioner was present and attended the meeting when the transfers were discussed. They were also alleging that the transfers were made on the request of the petitioners 1 and 2 through their letters written to the Chairman of the company. The respondents were also alleging that in response to the said letters, late Shri B.L. Batra had vide his letter dated 4-8-1993, informed the petitioners regarding the transfer of their shares in Batra Films Pvt. Ltd. It has also been stated that Batra Films Pvt. Ltd. had assets over Rs. 24 lacs and it is wrong to allege that the said company was a defunct company. The respondents have also filed Xerox copies of the statement made by the mother of the petitioner before the Police wherein she has stated that the transfers were effected as per the wishes of the petitioners and has denied the allegation made by the petitioner regarding fraudulent transfers. The respondents have also filed the Xerox copies of the statement made by respondent No. 3 before the Police that their shares in the Batra Films Pvt, Ltd. were transferred in favour of the petitioners when asked to do so by Shri B.L. Batra and they had signed the transfer forms. The petitioner, however, was disputing all these documents as forged and fabricated and was relying upon the report of the Forensic Laboratory in respect of their assertion. So far as the report of the Forensic Laboratory is concerned, the same has been filed in the criminal proceedings which are still pending for adjudication.