seen the documents on which
respondents-1 and 2 (petitioners respectively in the said
proceedings) would depend upon the documents which are
fraudulently created ... original
- 25 -
documents which are available in the said office thereby
indicating that the document is a fraudulent document.
25. With this background
alleged GPA which
is marked as Ex.P.16 is a
fraudulent document?
2. Whether the plaintiff further
proves that in pursuance ... plaintiff at any point of time and it
is a fraudulent document. AS a consequence of a
fraudulent document the re-constitutional partnership
deed alleged
dated 03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent to cancel the
fraudulent documents 1.Settlement deed dated 15.06.2009 – Doc.
No.171 of 2009, 2.Settlement deed ... dated
03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent to cancel the fraudulent
documents,
1.Settlement deed dated 15.06.2009 – Doc. No.171 of 2009,
2.Settlement deed
settlement deed dated 16.07.2019 which according to the petitioner is a
fraudulent document created by them. The petitioner has therefore made
a complaint ... Registration Act, 1908 on the ground that
a fraudulent document has been created by the fourth and fifth
respondents. Since the same was not considered
issued by them to were fraudulently issued without
actual removal of goods. On the basis of such fraudulent
documents they had filed the rebate claims ... Appellant 1 through it Director
(Appellant 2), to manipulate the documents fraudulently.
4.16 Appellant 1 have argued heavily relying on the decision
issued by them to were fraudulently issued without
actual removal of goods. On the basis of such fraudulent
documents they had filed the rebate claims ... Appellant 1 through it Director
(Appellant 2), to manipulate the documents fraudulently.
4.16 Appellant 1 have argued heavily relying on the decision
issued by them to were fraudulently issued without
actual removal of goods. On the basis of such fraudulent
documents they had filed the rebate claims ... Appellant 1 through it Director
(Appellant 2), to manipulate the documents fraudulently.
4.16 Appellant 1 have argued heavily relying on the decision
issued by them to were fraudulently issued without
actual removal of goods. On the basis of such fraudulent
documents they had filed the rebate claims ... Appellant 1 through it Director
(Appellant 2), to manipulate the documents fraudulently.
4.16 Appellant 1 have argued heavily relying on the decision
issued by them to were fraudulently issued without
actual removal of goods. On the basis of such fraudulent
documents they had filed the rebate claims ... Appellant 1 through it Director
(Appellant 2), to manipulate the documents fraudulently.
4.16 Appellant 1 have argued heavily relying on the decision
issued by them to were fraudulently issued without
actual removal of goods. On the basis of such fraudulent
documents they had filed the rebate claims ... Appellant 1 through it Director
(Appellant 2), to manipulate the documents fraudulently.
4.16 Appellant 1 have argued heavily relying on the decision
