Union Bank of India vs M/s. Vardhman Texturisers P. Ltd. on 22 May 2026

**ORDER**

1. 1. It emerges from the record that Original Application No.168/1997 was filed by Applicant Union Bank of India against the Defendants, which was decided by this Tribunal vide Judgment and order dated 04/12/2006 and Recovery Certificate was issued, directing Defendant Nos.1 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,89,433.45p with simple interest @6% p.a. thereon from 01/07/1997 until realization. This Tribunal further directed Defendant Nos.7 to 16 to pay the respective amount as detailed in the operative order.

2. 2. Pursuant to the Recovery Certificate issued by this Tribunal, the Applicant Bank also initiated Recovery Proceeding No.449/2006 before Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT, Ahmedabad. However, during the pendency and final hearing of the said Recovery Proceeding, 2T.A. No.2/2010

Defendant No.5 i.e., CD No.5 – Mr. Arun H. Jain filed an application for setting aside the final Judgment and order passed in O.A.No.168/1997 qua him. He also filed an application for condonation of delay being M.A.No.34/2009, which was dismissed by this Tribunal. Therefore, CD No.5 – Mr. Arun H. Jain preferred Misc. Appeal No.78/2010 before Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai ("DRAT" for short). After hearing the parties, the said Appeal was allowed by Hon'ble DRAT and final judgment and order passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.168/1997 dated 04/12/2006 was set aside qua Defendant No.5 / CD No.5. Pursuant to setting aside the said Judgment qua CD No.5, the said OA was restored qua to him, which was renumbered and transferred to DRT-II, Ahmedabad, having jurisdiction to hear the said application pursuant to establishment of DRT-II, Ahmedabad and numbered as Transfer Application No.2/2010. In the aforesaid T.A.No.2/2010, CD No.5 submitted an Interim Application vide Ex.R/51 for sending the admitted and disputed documents bearing his signatures to the Government Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar for opinion. The said application was rejected by DRT-II, Ahmedabad. Hence, CD No.5 preferred Appeal from Order No.49/2012 before the Hon'ble DRAT. The Hon'ble Chairperson of DRAT, Mumbai was pleased to allow the Interim Application filed by CD No.5 vide Ex.R/51 by passing the following order:

**"-:ORDER :-"**

*The Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the Ld. P.O. is set aside. The Interim Application (Exh.R-51) filed by the appellant is allowed. The Ld. P.O. will send the admitted and disputed documents bearing the signature of the appellant to the Government hand writing and finger print expert for his opinion as prayed by the appellant and after receiving his opinion, he will decide the O.A. expeditiously in accordance with law.*

3T.A. No.2/2010

Sd/- Chairperson"

3. Pursuant to the direction issued by Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai, this Tribunal sent the relevant documents to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad for their expert opinion. The handwriting expert of Government agency submitted his expert opinion dated 21/07/2014, which is on record vide Ex.M/73. The relevant portion of the said report reads as under:

*"My opinion is based on the consideration of differences in writing habits observed between the questioned and the standards. Inter-se comparison of the standards in the form of specimens and admitted reveals that they are freely written without any hesitation and exhibit natural variation among them, which is expected of genuine writings of a person. They thus form a suitable basis for comparison with the questioned. The general writing habits such as degree of skill, habitual speed of writing, fundamental muscular movement as coordination, alignment, relative size and proportion of characters are observed different between the questioned and the standards. The questioned are observed to be attempted simulations from memory, the product being a mixture of some features of genuine signature that recollection can provide together with contributions from writer's own habit to complete the endeavour. Differences are also observed in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of various characters between the questioned and the standards. Some of such differences of subtle nature are the following.*

*Ticked commencement of introductory stroke in 'A', relative extent of its legs, shape of its apex, relatively compressed nature of whole body, manner of combining second leg with middle cross bar together with shape of resulting triangular loop, finish of second leg when the character is isolated, tapered finish of cross bar when not combined with K-stem; extent of K-stem, direction of extent of its arms, location of the buckle part; location of J-stem vis-à-vis 'K' when combined with underscore, shape of triangular loop resulting from the combination of J-stem with underscore; extent of underscore together with its ticked finish; ticked commencement of initial part in 'a', shape of its body, manner of its combination with i-stem; short nature of i-stem, nature as well as location of i-dot; manner of simplification of terminal 'n' and nature of dots, observed at places, succeeding first as well as second character as observed in the standards are observed different in the questioned.*

*The aforesaid differences observed in discriminating elements are beyond the expected range of natural variation for these elements within the writings with which they are being compared. These differences cannot be attributed to writing conditions, other external or*

4T.A. No.2/2010

*internal factors and disguise. The differences are fundamental in nature which offset the weight of any pictorial similarities and their consideration leads me to the opinion of different authorship. The similarities observed are superficial in nature as attention is directed towards more obvious features rather than the subtle ones.*

13. After the examination the parcel(s) containing the exhibits/remnants have been sealed with the seal impression as per the specimen provided below:

SEAL

Sd/- Signature of the Examiner with date"

4. Relying on the aforesaid opinion of expert, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the expert has claimed comparison of the signature in his report. However, no signatures i.e., forged and / or another signature claimed to be right have been produced with the opinion. As per the result of examination claimed by the said expert opinion, it is only mentioned that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writing stamped and marked S/1 to S/73 and N/1 to N/14 did not write the red enclosed writing similarly stamped and marked D/1 to D/13; therefore, the said report of handwriting expert is not a complete report. It is necessary that the said handwriting expert ought to have given his opinion regarding the signature and ought to have referred the documents which have been placed before him for his opinion. Therefore, prima facie the said report is not admissible in the eyes of law.

5. He further submitted that the said opinion is only on the basis of the signatures produced before this Tribunal. The handwriting expert never called upon CD No.5 to sign in his presence. Therefore, obviously CD No.5 might have submitted his wrong signature with mala fide intention.

5T.A. No.2/2010

Hence, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the opinion of handwriting expert placed on record is doubtful and deserves to be ignored by this Tribunal.

1. 6. It reveals from the record that the documents in question were sent by this Tribunal to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad vide letter dated 11/06/2014 seeking opinion of handwriting expert. Thereafter, various communications between this Tribunal and the above government institution of Forensic Science Laboratory were exchanged and this Tribunal appears to have provided all necessary information and documents sought for by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thus, it becomes clear that in compliance of order dated 03/04/2013 passed by Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai, this Tribunal has undertaken the process of seeking opinion of Government Handwriting Expert. In that view of the matter, the doubt raised on behalf of the Applicant Bank about genuineness of specimen signature of CD No.5 sent to the handwriting expert cannot be sustained. When the handwriting expert was provided through this Tribunal both the specimens signature as well as disputed signature, it was not necessary for the handwriting expert to call upon CD No.5 to obtain his specimen signature for its comparison with disputed signature.

2. 7. The handwriting expert has clearly given his opinion with the report containing his OPINION as "**the person who wrote the blue enclosed writing stamped and marked as S/1 to S/73 and N/1 to N/14 did not write the red enclosed writing similarly stamped and marked D/1 to D/13.**"

6T.A. No.2/2010

1. 8. It is well settled that where the Court is required to form an opinion on matters involving specialized knowledge, science, technical skill, handwriting, forensic examination, or other subjects beyond ordinary human experience, the opinion of a qualified expert becomes a relevant fact under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The object of expert evidence is to assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion on matters requiring specialized study and technical expertise.

2. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3318** held that expert evidence is admissible when the subject-matter is such that persons without special skill or experience are incapable of forming a correct judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the value of expert evidence depends upon the reasons stated in support of the opinion and the material furnished for arriving at such conclusion.

3. 10. In **Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 806** the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that expert testimony is a weak type of evidence unless supported by cogent reasons, scientific analysis, and objective material; however, where the opinion is clear, consistent, scientifically supported, and inspires confidence, the Court may safely rely upon the same.

4. 11. In this case the opinion rendered by the expert is also consistent with the contemporaneous record and other evidence available on record. There is no material contradiction or circumstance which renders the expert opinion doubtful or unreliable. On the contrary, the report 7T.A. No.2/2010

appears logical, coherent, and based upon recognized principles applicable to the subject under consideration.

1. 12. Though expert opinion is not binding upon the Court and must be evaluated like any other evidence, it nevertheless carries considerable persuasive value when supported by proper reasoning and corroborative circumstances. In the facts of the present case, **this Tribunal finds no reason to discard the expert opinion and accordingly accepts and relies upon the same.**

2. 13. Accordingly, this Tribunal is satisfied that the expert opinion on record is trustworthy, reliable, and capable of being acted upon for adjudication of the issues involved in the present proceedings.

CONCLUSION

- • In view of the aforesaid discussion, the handwriting expert's opinion, as stated, above, confirmed that the signature on the disputed documents does not belong to CD No.5 / Defendant No.5. Hence, the alleged claim of guarantee of CD No.5 by the Applicant Bank is disproved by the Bank against CD No.5. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that Defendant No.5 has not given any guarantee as claimed by the Applicant Bank.

- • In the result, T.A.No.2/2010 (O.A.No.168/1997) is hereby dismissed against the Defendant No.5 / CD No.5.

- • Defendant No.5 / CD No.5 is hereby discharged from his liability in R.P.No.449/2006 arising out of Recovery Certificate issued by this Tribunal in O.A.No.168/1997.

8T.A. No.2/2010

- • Let a copy of this judgment be sent to concerned Ld. Recovery Officer, to be placed on records of R.P.No.449/2006.

- • File be consigned to the records.

**(Pankaj Kumār Upadhyay)** **Presiding Officer** **DRT-II, Ahmedabad**

Saloni