Introduction
The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgment, addressed the jurisdictional concern of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) in terms of forensic investigation and examining forged documents. The case of Smt. Kavita Arora v. Leptons Designtek (P.) Ltd.[i] centres around the dispute between two shareholders and directors of a company alleging forgery of documents. As a minority shareholder, the appellant challenged the respondent’s actions of removing her from the directorship and alleged foul play. After the Company Law Board (‘CLB’) dismissed their petition for lack of jurisdiction, the issue was submitted before the High Court to determine whether the NCLT could adjudicate the matter or not.
Facts
The respondent company in question was incorporated at the instance of respondent no. 2, where the appellant and respondent no. 2 were the only shareholders and directors. The appellant held 10% of the total shareholding, whereas respondent no. 2 held the remaining 90%.
The appellant was also an authorised signatory for the company’s bank account.
Due to marital issues, the appellant and respondent no. 2 verbally agreed on the division of funds and properties. It was confirmed via electronic mail.
The appellant was later removed from the directorship by a forged resignation letter, and her shareholding was reduced to 5%, increasing respondent no. 2’s total shareholding to 95%.
The appellant registered a first information report (FIR) with the Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’), stating that respondent no. 2 planned to sell the company’s properties without her consent.
The EOW seized the alleged forged documents, and the appellant filed a company petition before the CLB.
CLB dismissed the petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
Held
The only issue before the High Court was to decide whether the NCLT has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and examine the alleged forged documents that changed the appellant’s directorship status.
It was held that NCLT has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, and the case was remanded to NCLT.
As per standard practice and rules, matters pending before the CLB must be transferred to NCLT, which came into effect on 01.06.2016.
The Court emphasised r. 43 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 (‘Rules’), grants NCLT the authority to request additional evidence before deciding on a petition. The Bench can ask parties to provide more documents or information to verify their claims. Evidence in electronic form is acceptable if legally permissible. In case of forgery or fabricating records, the bench can allow a forensic examination of the records where necessary.
It was reiterated that NCLT has a wide spectrum of powers in examining documents and conducting forensic investigations.
Consequently, the case was remanded to the NCLT for adjudication.
Our Analysis
The Delhi High Court has clarified NCLT's jurisdictional scope in adjudicating matters involving forgery and the examination of evidence. The Court emphasised the broad powers granted to the NCLT under the Rules, including the authority to request additional evidence and order forensic investigations where necessary.
This judgment reinforces NCLT's comprehensive authority in resolving complex company disputes, particularly those involving allegations of forgery.
End Note
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5804[13-08-2024].
Authored by Vanshika, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.