I had gone through your website very carefully. Indeed, contents of this site is informative and very useful for end users normally who are not in to this field. Unlike some other experts, you are not boastful. I am sure that many clients would get benefitted from this site as well as from your services. I wish you all the best.
Dr.S.R.Koradasr korada@hotmail.com 9312831475 Senior Scientific Officer, DSIR,
Ministry of Science and Technology New Delhi - 110016.

As the defendent no. not only denied the execution of the sale deed but also denied the signatures thereupon the plentif examined P.W.3 Shri. S.P. Singh Handwriting Expert who after comparing the disputed signatures purported to
have been affixed by defendent no. 1 on the sale deed E.X.P.1 with his admitted signatures appoint that the admitted as well as disputed signatures have been affixed by one and the same person. To my mind the report, opinion submitted by P.W.3 is more convincing and authentic. Hence, the court is in no doubt about the fact that the questioned as well as the specimen signatures were affixed by one and the same person.
C.J (S.D.), Faridabad In Re: Mahender Singh Yadav v/s Richhpal

In order to proof the receipt, the Judgement debtor appeared as his own witness and examined two attesting witnesses and the handwriting expert where as Krishen Chander appearing as his own witness and produced Shri R.P. Singh, Handwriting Expert. J.D.W.3 is the handwriting expert for the judgement-debtor (who later on...agreed with the observation made in para A of the opinion marked "B" in Exe.DHW-1/8 file by shri R.P Singh, the handwriting expert produced by the degree holder. The two vital admission of (JDW-3) not only all together wiped out her opinion but confirm the report of Shri Singh the at the disputed writing marked C2, C1 on EXE,JWD 1/1 differ from the comparitive admitted and sample writings marked A-18, A-20 and S-1 to S-10 and is therefore not written in the handwtriting of the same person. This evidence by itself is enough to proof that the so called receipt was forged document.
Raju Anand v/s Mrs Madhu Kumari 39 (1989) Delhi Law Times 21.

Very good and informative site with lots and lots of information. Highly informative and interesting reading. Thank you for your opinion on Graphology with respect to my handwriting. YOur opinion was very accurate and I highly recommend your name in this field.
Balpreet Kaur Kohli, Chief Company Secretary, B.K. Kohli & Associates, New
Delhi.

I really appreciate your help with respect to the sale deed in my case. Your opinion with respect to the disputed signatures proved to be the turning point in our case and I thank you for your honest and forceful opinion.
Arvinder Singh Chawla, Chawla Builders & Contractors,New Delhi.

Your report, analysis, testimony and above all your presence itself was a hall mark in the inquiry proceedings, which ultimately helped me in getting
exoneration in the departmental inquiry. I sincerely pray the God that he should grace you with good health and conditions so that you can render your
help to needy people like me.

Dr. S.R.Korada, Senior Scientific Officer, Ministary of Science & Technology, New Delhi.

Very good and informative site.
Gaurav Tandon

I consider you one of the best Expert in this field. I admire your sincerity and hard work.
Bakshi Tejeshwar Singh, New Delhi

Dear Mr. Singh, Thank you for your advise and guidence which immensely helped us in proving the forgery being commited on the Rent Receipts.
Srimanta Sen, Advocate, Noida.

It is really amazing the way you decuced my character only on the basis of my handwriting. I never thought this could be done so efficiently.
Carla McSmith, Montreal, Canada.