Madras HC Division Bench Delivers Split Verdict on Probing Signature Forgery Under Sec 73 Evidence Act When Deponent Admits Disputed Signatures; Matter Referred to CJ - 2025-06-11

Madras High Court Bench Divided on Signature Forgery Probe When Deponent Admits Signatures; Matter Escalates to Chief Justice

Chennai, Tamil Nadu – A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Honourable Dr. Justice AnitaSumanth and Honourable Mr. Justice C.Kumarappan , has delivered a split verdict on whether a court should investigate allegations of signature forgery when the individual purported to have signed the documents admits to the signatures. The differing opinions have led to the matter being referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

The appeals (O.S.A.Nos. 131, 132 & 133 of 2024) were filed by Andromeda Fashions Limited against orders dated March 28, 2024, which had dismissed its applications seeking contempt proceedings against Mr. Samir Suri (Respondent No. 1), expert examination of his signatures, and a court comparison of the signatures.

Case Background: A Long-Standing Dispute and Allegations of Forgery

The dispute traces back to Civil Suit No. 536 of 1999, where Andromeda Fashions obtained an ex-parte money decree against Samir Suri and others on April 26, 2012. Years later, on September 4, 2022, Mr. Suri filed an application (A.No. 5583 of 2022) to set aside this decree, with a significant delay of 3784 days.

Andromeda Fashions noticed discrepancies between Mr. Suri 's signatures on the affidavit supporting this delay condonation application (dated 04.09.2022, attested in Chennai) and his signatures on a subsequent rejoinder (dated 27.12.2022) and other documents, including a Relinquishment Deed. This led Andromeda to file three applications alleging forgery and improper attestation, as Mr. Suri was admittedly in the USA when the initial affidavit was attested in Chennai.

Arguments Before the Court

Andromeda Fashions Limited (Appellant): Represented by Senior Counsel Mr. R. Srinivas, the appellant argued that:

* There were "very apparent differences" between Mr. Suri 's signatures in the initial affidavit and vakalatnama (Group I documents) and those in later affidavits and other admitted documents (Group II documents).

* The attestation of the affidavit (dated 04.09.2022) in Chennai while Mr. Suri was in the USA was illegal and pointed to forgery and fraud played upon the court.

* Mr. Suri ’s subsequent admission of the signatures should not deter the court from investigating the forgery, as he stood to benefit from such an admission.

Samir Suri (Respondent No. 1): Represented by Mrs. N. Kavitha Rameshwar , the respondent contended that: * He had indeed signed all the documents in question.

* The improper attestation of the affidavit (04.09.2022) was an inadvertent error for which he tendered an apology, stating it was signed in Los Angeles and sent to Chennai for filing.

* Since he owned the signatures, there was no need for expert examination or court comparison, and the allegations of forgery were baseless.

Diverging Judicial Opinions

The two judges on the bench arrived at different conclusions, leading to a split verdict.

Dr. Justice AnitaSumanth 's View: Justice Sumanth found merit in the appellant's contentions. Key points from her judgment include:

* Apparent Discrepancies: "On a careful comparison of the signatures in Group I and II documents, we find that there are very apparent differences... We are thus of the view that the signatures in affidavit dated 04.09.2022 and accompanying vakalat dated 19.08.2022, contain material differences from the signatures in the documents in Group II." (Paras 20, 22)

* Court's Power of Comparison: Citing Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and precedents like Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan , Justice Sumanth affirmed the Court's power to compare signatures.

* Seriousness of Forgery Allegations: Referring to Afzal and another v. State of Haryana and Re: Perry Kansagra , she emphasized the Court's duty to address allegations of fraud and false statements.

* On Respondent's Admission: "Hence, we do not concur with the conclusion that the allegation of forgery must be rejected merely on the statement of the interested party, who stands to benefit by acceptance of the offending signatures." (Para 51)

Justice Sumanth allowed O.S.A.No.132 of 2024 (seeking court comparison of signatures), dismissed O.S.A.No.133 of 2024 (for expert opinion, deeming court comparison sufficient), and closed O.S.A.No.131 of 2024 (contempt proceedings, opting not to precipitate at this juncture despite her findings).

Mr. Justice C.Kumarappan 's View (Dissenting): Justice Kumarappan took a different stance, emphasizing the respondent's admission of the signatures. His reasoning included:

* Admission as Key: "When the author of the alleged disputed signature owned the same, there is no necessity arises to invoke Section 73 & 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the opinion evidence is not a conclusive proof." (Para 5 of his judgment)

* Reliance on Sasikala Pushpa Precedent: He heavily relied on Sasikala Pushpa and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu , where the Supreme Court held that if parties admit their signatures on a vakalatnama, even if improperly attested or doubted by an expert, it doesn't amount to forgery for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. > "In the light of the statement of the appellants admitting their signatures in the vakalatnama, we do not think that the opinion of the handwriting expert would stand on any higher footing." (Quoted from Sasikala Pushpa in Para 18 of his judgment)

* Imperfect Science of Handwriting: "The science of identification of handwriting is not a perfect science, and the likelihood of errors could not be ruled out." (Para 13 of his judgment)

* No Factual Foundation for Contempt: Given the admission, he found no grounds to initiate contempt proceedings.

Justice Kumarappan concluded that all three Original Side Appeals should be dismissed.

The Path Forward: Referral to Chief Justice

Due to the "cleavage of opinion" between the two judges on the legal issue, the final order stated: "In light of the cleavage of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders."

The case now awaits the decision of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, who may assign it to a larger bench or a third judge to resolve the critical legal question: What is the extent of the court's duty to investigate signature forgery when the alleged signatory admits the signature, especially in the context of procedural integrity and preventing fraud on the court? The outcome will have significant implications for how such matters are handled in future litigation.