HERITAGE CABLES PVT LTD Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-8-8
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 08,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S. Kumaran, (J.) Chairperson - (1.)HEARD Counsel. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.4.2003 passed in I.A. 98 of 2003, declining the request of the appellants to have certain documents compared by the Handwriting Expert, so that the report can be received for the purposes of appreciating the plea taken by the appellants/defendants 2 to 4 that the said documents are forged. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has declined the request on the ground that the application does not contain all the materials necessary, especially the details of documents in which, the admitted signatures of the appellants/ defendants 2 to 4 are found. The learned Presiding Officer has also observed that it has not been made clear as to whose signatures have been forged except stating that the documents have been forged. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the details as to the documents which are forged are mentioned in the written statement. He also contends that the signatures of defendants 2 to 4 have been forged. He also points out that the defendants 2 to 4 on their own had also got compared by the expert the disputed signatures from the copies of the documents with admitted signatures and the report has also been filed into the Tribunal. But he states that it is necessary that the disputed signatures on the original documents have to be compared. But, the difficulty is that the appellants have not specifically mentioned as to what are the documents in which the admitted signatures are found, with which the comparison has to be made.
(2.)Therefore, in my view, the appeal can be disposed of with liberty to the appellants to file a fresh application specifying the documents which allegedly contain the forged signatures, the defendants whose signatures are allegedly forged, and also specifying the document/documents containing the admitted signatures of the defendants with which the comparison should be made. As when such an application is filed, the learned Presiding Officer, after giving the opportunity to the other side to put forth their case, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the learned Presiding Officer has observed in the impugned order, that the learned Presiding Officer himself can compare the alleged forged documents with the admitted documents. He contends that this is not the proper/correct view to be taken, in view of the certain decisions of Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court. It will be open to the learned Counsel for the appellants to bring the decisions to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer, so that appropriate orders can be passed.

(3.)MR. H.C. Dhall, the learned Counsel for the appellants states that the Original Application No. 508/2000 is now fixed for final arguments on 11.8.2003, and that he wilt move an appropriate application on 11.8.2003 itself. If and when such an application is filed, the learned Presiding Officer will consider that application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
A copy of this order be furnished to the appellants and to the learned Counsel for the appellants dasti and also be forwarded to the concerned DRT.



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