The court finds prima facie evidence of forged signatures in documents submitted by Walmark Holdings in arbitration proceedings against Fortis Healthcare.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the Registrar General to initiate criminal proceedings against Walmark Holdings Limited and its officials for allegedly submitting forged documents in arbitration proceedings against Fortis Healthcare Limited. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, found sufficient grounds to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), also reflected in Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The case arose from a petition filed by Walmark Holdings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief based on a Term Sheet and Side Letters purportedly executed between Walmark and Fortis. However, Fortis Healthcare contested the validity of these documents, asserting that they bore the forged signature of their former CEO, Mr. Bhavdeep Singh, and were never authorized by the company.
The court's examination revealed that the Term Sheet and accompanying documents were indeed unsigned by Fortis's authorized representatives at the relevant time. Furthermore, affidavits submitted by Fortis representatives confirmed the non-execution of the alleged agreements. Despite these facts, Walmark proceeded with the petition, prompting Fortis to file a counter-application under Section 340 CrPC, alleging fraud and perjury.
In its judgment, the court underscored the principles set out by the Supreme Court in similar cases, emphasizing that proceedings for perjury should be initiated only in exceptional circumstances where deliberate falsehoods are used to secure favorable judicial orders. The court noted the absence of a required preliminary inquiry before lodging a complaint under Section 340 CrPC, as determined by the Supreme Court in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra.
Justice Bansal pointed out the deliberate falsehoods on matters of substance in the documents submitted by Walmark, particularly highlighting the non-applicants' admission that the Term Sheet was never signed. The court deemed the conduct of Walmark's officials, who failed to respond to the court's notices or present their defense, as indicative of mala fide intent.
The court directed the Registrar General to file a complaint with the appropriate Judicial Magistrate, along with all relevant documents, to pursue legal action against the individuals involved. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and deterring the submission of fraudulent documents in courts.
This ruling serves as a stern warning against the misuse of judicial processes through fraudulent means and highlights the importance of honesty and transparency in legal submissions.
Bottom Line:
Filing of a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on forged and fabricated documents can attract proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), and warrants action against individuals for false statements and perjury.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 340, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 209, 464, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 379
Walmark Holdings Limited v. Fortis Healthcare Limited, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2842075
