Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8500 (MAD)

SHANTINI PAUL v. VINCENT

WP/30211/2025 · 2026-07-15

K Surender

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

WP No. 30211 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP Nos.30211 & 30212 of 2025 and WMP No.37247 of 2025 Shantini Paul Director of Amrith Package Pvt. Ltd., Ganesh Nagar, Anuppambattu Post, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai-601 203. Residential Address No.47, Sabapathy Street (Relocation) Sembium, Perambur Chennai-600 011. Petitioner in both cases Vs Vincent Respondent in both cases PRAYER in W.P.No.30211 of 2025 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the I Additional Labour Court in dismissing the I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed in C.P. No.2 of 2023 dated 30.06.2025 pertaining to send the documents marked as exhibits by the respondents herein to forensic laboratory and to quash the same and to direct the Labour Court to send the documents to forensic laboratory and to quash the same and to direct the Labour Court to send the documents to Forensic Laboratory. PRAYER in W.P.No.30212 of 2025 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the I Additional Labour Court in I.A. No.3 of 2024 filed in C.P. No.2 of 2023 dated 30.06.2025 and to quash the same and to direct the Labour Court to punish the respondent for perjury. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 30211 of 2025 For Petitioner: Mr.Michael Amalraj For Respondent: No appearance COMMON ORDER None appears for the respondent. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition insofar as W.P.No.30212 of 2025 is concerned. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle. 3. In view of the endorsement and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, W.P.No.30212 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Insofar as W.P.No.30211 of 2025 is concerned, this writ petition is heard and taken up for final disposal. 5. The petitioner before this Court filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 in C.P.No.2 of 2023 before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai seeking to send Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to the forensic laboratory to verify the genuineness of the signatures of one Mr.Paul Sathish (deceased) who is the husband of the petitioner herein, found in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved against the 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 30211 of 2025 same, W.P.No.30211 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner. This Court on 22.09.2025 had granted stay of the proceedings in C.P.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai and the same has been extended till date. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were not signed by her late husband. The Labour Court held that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, allows the Court to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted or proved signatures and there was no necessity for the documents to be sent to the expert. 7. Though the Court is empowered to compare disputed signatures and writings with the admitted signatures and writings, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, the said power should be used sparingly. In view of the nature of advanced technology whereby the signatures are compared by the handwriting expert, it would be just and necessary that the documents which are disputed by the petitioner, ought to have been sent to the handwriting expert for to comparison and opinion. The said method would be more scientific and dependable. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 30211 of 2025 8. Though, the Courts cannot be refrained from comparing the signature, however in the interest of justice and for both scientific accuracy, the documents under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 shall be sent to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P.No.30211 of 2025 is allowed and the orders passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in C.P.No.2 of 2022 is hereby set aside. The I Additional Labour Court, Chennai is directed to send the documents under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to the Forensic Laboratory along with admitted signatures for comparison. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (K. SURENDER,J) 15-07-2026 vum Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No To The I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 30211 of 2025 K.SURENDER J. vum WP Nos.30211 & 30212 of 2025 and WMP No.37247 of 2025 15-07-2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis