Application stands disposed of.
The second appellant was examined under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code and his statement recorded by the learned Single Judge, is extracted below I am the Managing Director of M s. Kapil Corepacks Pvt.
On 3.10.2008, a learned Single Judge directed the Principal Officer and Managing Director of the first appellant company to appear in person on 12.11.2008 along with its annual returns filed with the Registrar of Companies, income tax returns and the balance sheets for the financial year 2003 2004 onwards.
On 31.7.2007 a learned Single Judge of the High Court made an order directing as follows a parties to file their original documents within four weeks and matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar for admission denial of documents on 27.9.2007 b matter to be listed before companyrt for framing issues on 8.1.2008 c parties to be personally present on the next date of hearing for recording their statement under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code and d the original receipt agreement of sale dated 7.9.2003 should be kept in safe custody in a sealed companyer.
In the said suit, the appellants filed an application under Section 151 of the Code for referring the agreement receipt to a hand writing expert or a Government Forensic Laboratory for examination of the signatures therein and for keeping the said document in safe custody.
33 lakhs made up of Rs.
9 lakhs paid by cheque by Harbans Lal, was an advance to their companypany first appellant obtained by late Sohanlal Dua to tide over a short term financial crisis and the said amount was treated as share application money.
As and when any application is field by the appellant, the same shall be companysidered by the learned Single Judge in terms of the observations made herein giving due weightage to the submissions of the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant.
51 lacs.
9 lacs received from the plaintiff is shown in the statement of account of the defendant No.1 Company.
and give his opinion with regard to the genuineness of the said document.
In the meanwhile, the plaintiff Harbans Lal having died on 12.11.2007, his legal representatives came on record on 29.4.2008.
As on 31st March, 2004, the paid up share capital of the defendant No.
In regard to the appellants application seeking reference to a hand writing expert, the learned single Judge directed as follows Insofar as the directions sought for sending the receipt agreement to sell to a hand writing expert is companycerned, I am of the companysidered view that the parties can lead their respective evidence including of hand writing expert in support of their pleas.
The appellants alleged that second appellant and his late brother had never signed the agreement receipt and the signatures found thereon, purporting to be the signatures of second appellant and his late brother were clever forgeries that they did number receive Rs.24 lakhs said to have been paid in cash that the sum of Rs.
The appellants filed an appeal aggrieved by the refusal to refer the matter to a hand writing expert, companytending that they had obtained a Preliminary Report dated 4.2.2007 from a Handwriting Expert with reference to a photocopy of the Agreement Receipt and that the Handwriting Expert companyld give expert evidence on the genuineness of the document, only if he got an opportunity to examine the original also.
On 5.3.2007, they also filed their written statement in the suit filed by Harbans Lal denying the claim, and making a companynter claim seeking a declaration that the agreement receipt put forth by the plaintiff was forged and void.
P.C. for short in regard to answers given by a party in an examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code.
The plaintiff did number fill up any share application form share allotment form before payment of money.
He alleged that second appellant and his brother late Sohan Lal Dua father of third appellant on behalf of the first appellant, had executed an Agreement Receipt dated 7.9.2003 agreeing to sell him an industrial property for a companysideration of Rs.
In pursuance of the said order, the second appellant appeared before the companyrt with the relevant documents on 12.11.2008.
2,02,41,600/ and had received a sum of Rs.
He further alleged that the appellants were unwilling to companyvey the property and failed to produce the documents necessary to satisfy him about their title to the property and that therefore in terms of the agreement, he was suing for refund of double the amount advanced by him.
I am number aware whether a request letter or a share application form is required to be filled up by a party before shares can be allotted.
They also made another application on 7.1.2008 to modify the order dated 31.7.2007 and defer the examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code till the report of the Handwriting Expert was received.
24 lakhs in cash towards the said agreement.
9 lakhs by cheque and Rs.
The said appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court on 1.11.2007 with the following observations In our companysidered opinion, the apprehension of the learned companynsel for the appellant is misplaced and unfounded as the appellant can file an application before the learned Single Judge seeking intervention of the companyrt to permit a hand writing expert to examine the original receipt agreement to sell dated 7.9.2003 take photographs etc.
1 Company was Rs.
The appellants filed a criminal companyplaint dated 23.2.2007 against Harbans Lal and certain others alleging that the purported signatures of second appellant and late Sohanlal Dua on the said agreement receipt were forged and that they had number executed any such agreement receipt.
Ltd. Rs.
66 lakhs.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal relates to the scope of Rule 2 of Order 10 of Code of Civil Procedure Code for short and the companyrectness of invoking of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
It is companyrect for the period ending 31st March, 2004 receipt of share application money of Rs.
In pursuance of it, the appellants filed an application on 7.1.2008 under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code to permit their Handwriting Expert to inspect the original Agreement Receipt dated 7.9.2003 and take photographs thereof so that he can give a further report as also evidence.
9 lacs is number shown and mentioned.
However, the said amount is number reflected in the annual return of the defendant No.1 Company which was filed in the Registrar of Companies.
Late Harbans Lal for short the plaintiff of whom the respondents are the legal heirs filed a suit against the appellants on 5.9.2006, for recovery of Rs.
