SHAKTI WELDMESH INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. CANARA BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-10-1
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 01,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)OFFICE note indicates that the copy of the Central Interest Scheme (Revised) for November 1984 Riot Victims has been filed by the appellant. The same is taken on record.
(2.)This appeal is against the impugned order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') on an application filed by the appellant requesting that (a) the proceedings in the O.A. be stayed, (b) directions be issued to the Bank to grant relief to the defendants in accordance with the Central Interest Subsidy Scheme for November 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') and to charge interest @ 1% per annum, and (c) for other reliefs. To this application, the respondent-Bank filed a reply stating, among other things, that the Scheme itself was promulgated in the year 1993 and, therefore, there is no question of grant of any credit as on 31.3.92, and that a sum of Rs. 9,34,582/- was credited to the Cash Credit Account of the defendant No. 1 on 16.3.94, and thus the eligible benefit under the Scheme has been given to the defendants.
The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT accepted the contention put forward by the respondent-Bank that the relief has already been granted. By so observing, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh and Ors. v. Union of India does not support the case of the defendants. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also observed that in case the defendants had any objection to the quantum of relief, they are at liberty to agitate the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Therefore, he held that there is no ground for giving direction as prayed for by the appellant since the benefit of the Scheme has already been granted and, therefore, dismissed the application.

(3.)AGGRIEVED, the appellant has filed this appeal. In spite of notice, the respondent-Bank has chosen to remain ax parte.


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