G RAMASWAMY Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2003-1-5
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 28,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.Subbulakshmy, - (1.)THE 5th defendant in the Original Application (OA) is the appellant in this appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the guarantor and the appellant did not sign the subsequent guarantees for the enhanced limits in the year 1994 and that document is a forged document. He further submitted that, that document was also sent to the expert and the expert has given opinion that the questioned signatures were not signed by the appellant. From the reasoning sheet of the expert it is seen that S1 to S41 did not write the signatures marked Q1 to Q5, the disputed signatures. THE reasoning given is that the standard signatures have been freely written and agree in the handwriting characteristics and the questioned signatures have been imitated, exhibit inherent signs of forgery like hesitation, slow drawn movement, defective-like quality and they differ significantly from the standard in the handwriting characteristics. Relying upon this expert opinion, the Counsel for the appellant submits that the questioned signatures were not signed by the appellant, the appellant is not liable for the suit claim and so the question of any payment under Section 21 of the Act does not arise.
(2.)The Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that even though the expert has given opinion like this, the Tribunal has compared the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and has come to the conclusion that only the appellant signed the disputed document and thus passed decree against this appellant also and the appellant is liable for the suit claim and the appellant is not entitled for waiver under Section 21 of Act.
The significant factor is that the expert who has given this opinion was not examined as witness and was also not cross-examined. Without examination of that expert, the expert opinion has been marked. From the opinion of the expert, it is seen that the disputed signatures were not signed by the appellant. So, it has to be gone in detail whether the disputed signatures were signed by the appellant by examining the expert. At this juncture, I do not deem it fit to pass any order under Section 21 of the Act directing the appellant to pay any amount to the Bank.

(3.)WAIVER of pre-deposit under Section 21 of the Act is granted and the appeal be numbered.


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