RAJAT KANWAR Vs. CANARA BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-8-1
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 06,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Miscellaneous Application 570/2002 in Unregistered Appeal - (1.)RESPONDENT-Canara Bank filed O.A. 180/2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant-Rajat Kanwar (as 5th defendant and hereinafter referred to as 'appellant/5th defendant), and four other defendants for the recovery of Rs. 75,93,865.19 with interest and costs. On 19.8.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order as prayed for by the respondent-Bank. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/5th defendant has preferred this appeal, and also this application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for waiving the pre-deposit, and to entertain the appeal.
(2.)The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this application. The appellant/5th defendant has also filed an additional affidavit.
I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.

(3.)THE learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant contends that all the defendants, including he appellant/5th defendant, were served with the notice of the O.A. by publication only, but LA. 221/2202 was filed for certain interim orders, including attachment of the fixed deposits in the name of the defendants. He contends that the order of attachment was passed on 26.2.2002, and it was only, when accounts were frozen that he came to know of the pendency of the O.A. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant further contends that when the appellant/5th defendant entered appearance on 5.4.2002 through Counsel, he was given time to file written statement within four weeks, and the matter was adjourned to 30.5.2002 to be listed before the Registrar. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant points out that a reply had been filed by the defendant to I.A. 221/ 2002 urging, among other things that the signatures of the appellant/5th defendant have been forged. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant contends that though the 5th defendant is stated to have executed a guarantee deed on 5.11.99, the same has been denied by the appellant/5th defendant. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant further contends that I.A. 221/2002 and the O.A. were fixed for the same date, namely, 19.8.2002, and that in spite of the fact the Counsel for the 5th defendant stated that the written statement of the 5th defendant was ready, and he may permitted to file the same into the Registry during the course of the day, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT refused to accept the same observing that there was no ground to grant any further opportunity. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant also points out from the impugned order dated 19.8.2002 that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed that the defendant had no sufficient cause to be disclosed against the grant of the reliefs prayed for in the O.A., that since no reply had been filed, the averments in the O.A. are deemed to have been admitted, and that for the failure of the defendants to file a reply, a final order has to be straight-away passed under Section 19(4) of the Act read with Rule 12(4) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Rules'). THE learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant further points out that so observing, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the impugned final order dated 19.8.2002.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.