this complaint on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents (Annexures C-1 to C-4) and for which, the replying Opposite Parties have ... vacant stocks of units by making forged, fabricated, undated documents sometimes antedated documents and the perfect example of which is the documents annexed
them. It would be apparent from the various documents of the OPs
that documents were antedated by the OPs only to make evidence
to show ... First Appeal No.96 of 2019 8
only the above said document but also reference can be made to
letter allegedly sent
perusal of the checking report dated 12.12.2004 appears to be a
forged document as the number of A+A is shown as 10777A ... February which is totally wrong. It appears that
while forging this document or antedating the same, the wrong date was
mentioned.
16. Moreover, the appellants
chosen to return the documents to the appellants on 5.06.2008. The
learned counsel for the appellants contends that the documents were returned to
the appellants ... demands by a letter which was antedated. Even if it is considered that the
respondent had returned the documents to the appellants in the month
case. Surveyor had not enquired
into the matter though he had produced documents before him on 25.04.1988. Vide final orders dated 29.02.1992
(Annexure ... insurance cover is antedated, the main point for determination. Therefore, in this case is as to whether the
cover note is antedated. As a matter
trade practices in providing legal opinion
based on forged, fabricated, fraudulent and antedated, OTS
compromise. The terms and conditions of the said OTS were
contradictory ... important fact was that the signatures of Mukesh Kumar on OTS
compromise document were not matching with his specimen
signatures in the bank
which
the alternate allotment was offered by the opposite party is antedated
i.e. 20.12.1899 and it is clear that the opposite party is only ... responsible for this mistake. Further, the opposite party failed to
provide any document which shows that the said letter was delivered
to the complainant before
antedated.
This Commission finds that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 9,60,461.43/- which is based on documents provided
itself, whereas stand of the respondent is that this
letter has been antedated by the appellant and it was received by it on
7.9.2005. Thus ... below. We shall deal
with this submission appropriately hereinafter.
4. From the documents on record, it
is clearly made out that 3 works in question
Oscar Motors Private Ltd. vs Sri. Pradip Rathore. on 20 August, 2016
Daily Order
STATE
