3. The SICC was also not persuaded by the evidence given by Reliance in support of its claim that the guarantee letter was forged.
For context, Reliance had claimed that it became aware of the forgery only later, partly because Agarwal had refused to comment on the issue since he had left Reliance and joined a competitor, namely, Adani. As per Reliance, Agarwal had feared at the time that any comment on the matter would be in breach of his contractual obligations to his new employer (Adani).
It was only in 2023 (after the arbitral award was passed and published) that Agarwal spoke to Reliance and claimed that he had not signed the guarantee letter, Reliance submitted.
Even so, the SICC opined that Agarwal’s testimony before the Court was not convincing.
“First, if Mr Agrawal could not remember the email (concerning the guarantee letter), he could not reliably give evidence of what he meant when sending that email. Secondly, his explanation is unconvincing and does not match the words he in fact used, as described above.”
By comparison, the Court found that it was more convinced by the evidence given by Shanghai Electric in support of the genuineness of the guarantee letter.
Both Reliance and Shanghai Electric had also produced handwriting experts to support their submissions with respect the authenticity or lack thereof of the guarantee letter. The SICC, however, found the findings of the handwriting expert produced by Shanghai Electric more compelling.
Source: Barandbench
