In Company Petition No. 1093/KB/2020 IN THE MATTER OF:

An Application under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Manoj Kumar Sahu & Ors.

…. Petitioners Versus Pali Hills Breweries Private Limited …Respondent And In the matter of :

Kumar Sachin … Applicant Versus Manoj Kumar Sahu & Anr.

… Respondents Date of Pronouncement: 06.02.2026.

CORAM:

SMT. BIDISHA BANERJEE, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

CMDE SIDDHARTH MISHRA, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

APPEARANCE: For Applicant Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv.

Mr. Turab Ali Kazmi, Adv.

In Company Petition No. 1093/KB/2020 For Kumar Sachin Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Wadehra, Adv.

Ms. Ramyani Bhattacharya, Adv.

Mr. Shourya Samanta, Adv.

ORDER

Per: Cmde Siddharth Mishra (Technical)

1. This Court congregated through a hybrid mode.

2. Heard the Learned Counsels for both parties.

3. Factual Matrix

3.1 The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking appointment of a handwriting/forensic expert for examination of signatures appearing on the Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.10.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned MOU”) and the resignation letter dated 05.10.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Resignation Letter”).

3.2 The main Company Petition bearing C.P. No. 1093/KB/2020 has been filed under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of Respondent No.1 Company.

3.3 It is the case of the parties that the Impugned MOU forms the basis of alleged transfer of shareholding and resignation of Petitioner No.1 from the Company, which documents are seriously disputed by the Petitioners on the ground of forgery.

In Company Petition No. 1093/KB/2020

3.4 Earlier applications seeking references of disputes to arbitration have been dismissed by this Tribunal, inter alia, observing that serious allegations of forgery require determination by leading evidence and cannot be referred to arbitration.

4. Submission on behalf of the Applicant:

4.1 It is submitted that the present application is necessitated as the authenticity of the signatures on the Impugned MOU and Impugned Resignation Letter goes to the very root of the allegations of oppression and mismanagement.

4.2 It is claimed that the signatures appearing in the said documents do not belong to Petitioner No.1 and that the documents have been fabricated with a mala fide intention to justify illegal transfer of shares and change in control of the Company.

4.3 It is contended that Rule 43(3) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 empowers this Tribunal to direct forensic examination of documents whenever such examination is necessary for effective adjudication.

4.4 It is further submitted that the issue of forgery is not collateral but foundational to the main Company Petition and therefore appointment of a handwriting expert is indispensable for arriving at a just conclusion.

In Company Petition No. 1093/KB/2020

4.5 Reliance has been placed upon judicial precedents holding that NCLT has jurisdiction to examine issues of fraud and forgery incidental to proceedings under Sections 241–242 of the Companies Act, 2013.

5. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent:

5.1 It is submitted that the present application is wholly misconceived and is involved to an attempt to delay the adjudication of the main Company Petition.

5.2 It is claimed that criminal proceedings concerning the same documents are already pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi, where cognizance has been taken for offences of forgery.

5.3 It is contended that this Tribunal ought not to examine the veracity of the Impugned MOU and Impugned Resignation Letter when the matter is sub judice before the criminal court.

5.4 It is further submitted that Rule 43(3) of the NCLT Rules applies only to statutory records and not to private documents such as the Impugned MOU and resignation letter.