Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Mr. Mehta states there is no concealment of any document as alleged by the respondent. It is submitted that in the email dated November 20, 2014 there is no reference to any attachments/enclosures and therefore it was an inadvertent error on the part of the Petitioner in not filing the attachments along with the email dated Novembe r 20, 2014. Even otherwise the minutes of meeting dated Nov e mbe r 13-14, 2014 attached with the said email cannot be relied upon as it is the case of Petitioner that no closing meeting was held after the completion of the audit on N o v e m b e r 14, 2014. The Respondent in its Reply has stated that the Petitioner could not impose a unilateral closing meeting which even could not have been conducted on November 13, 2014 and November 14, 2014 as the data was not analysed and just collected. If that is so, how did the said Minutes of Meeting dated November 13, 2014 and N o v e m b e r 14, 2014 come into existence. This is a clear case of fabrication of document which is also borne out from the fact that the said minutes of meeting filed by the Respondent is an unsigned document.