PRONOUNCED ON : 14.08.2023
CORAM :THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Application No. 2447 of 2022
Introduction:
The case of S.Sangeetha and S.Subatra (Applicants/Plaintiffs) against R.Krishnamurthy, Thirugnanaselvi, and Aswini Krishnamurthy (Respondents/Defendants) revolves around allegations of financial misappropriation, forgery, and the need for forensic examination of certain documents. The Applicants seek permission to introduce additional evidence and request a forensic examination of documents to establish their claims.
Factual Background:
The Plaintiffs initiated a suit for the recovery of money and return of gold deposited in a locker. They assert that money from their bank accounts was unlawfully withdrawn without their consent and knowledge. During the ongoing legal proceedings, the Plaintiffs’ staff discovered certain documents in the possession of the 1st Respondent. These documents are crucial for resolving the issues in the case. Notably, the discovery includes a cheque book and cancelled cheques with forged signatures of the Plaintiffs.
Applicants’ Claims:
The Applicants contend that the 1st Respondent misused the cheque book to withdraw money without their consent. They discovered a cheque book with entries allegedly in the handwriting of the 1st Respondent, along with a cancelled cheque bearing a forged signature of the 1st Applicant. The Applicants posit that forensic examination is necessary to establish the alleged forgery and misuse of their financial resources.
Respondents’ Counterarguments:
The Respondents assert that the lawsuit and interim applications are an abuse of legal process, intended as a response to a company petition filed by the Respondents before the National Company Law Tribunal. They deny that the car in question was taken back by the company and present an alternative narrative of events surrounding the alleged disappearance of the car. The Respondents claim that the allegations are baseless and an attempt to create new evidence.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice R.N. Manjula, presiding over the case, evaluates the contentions of both parties. The Court emphasizes that the Applicants must prove the manner in which the alleged documents were discovered and that they should have been submitted at the time of filing the suit. The Court notes the Respondents’ counterarguments, including the pending police complaint regarding the alleged theft of the car.
Legal Principle Applied:
The Court underscores the necessity for substantial proof before embarking on the forensic examination process. It highlights the need to establish that the car in question was not stolen but rather taken by the 1st Applicant, and that the documents were not discovered until May 2022. The Court emphasizes the importance of adhering to the proper legal process and not stalling the trial proceedings prematurely.
Decision:
Justice R.N. Manjula dismisses the Applicants’ application. The Court finds that the Applicants have not satisfactorily proven their contentions and the circumstances surrounding the alleged discovery of the documents. The Court also suggests that the alleged signatures on honoured cheques could carry more weight in the case. It concludes that the Applicants’ claims lack substantial evidence and that the application for forensic examination is premature.
Analysis and Implications:
The case presents a complex situation involving allegations of financial misconduct, forgery, and the need for forensic examination. Justice Manjula’s decision underscores the importance of presenting well-substantiated evidence when seeking a forensic examination. The Court also highlights the relevance of proving the circumstances surrounding the alleged discovery of the documents. This case analysis serves as a reminder of the judicial scrutiny applied to claims and the necessity of adhering to proper legal procedures.
Conclusion:
The case of Sangeetha vs. Krishnamurthy demonstrates the intricate nature of legal disputes involving financial matters and forgery allegations. The Court’s emphasis on substantiated evidence and adherence to proper legal procedures reflects the need for a thorough examination of claims. The decision not only dismisses the application for forensic examination but also underscores the importance of a strong evidentiary basis in legal proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar
