MAYA PRINTS Vs. CANARA BANK
LAWS(DR)-2004-6-5
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 04,2004

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S. Kumaran, (J.) Chairperson - (1.) THIS is appeal against the final order dated 16.1.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in O.A. 615/95 filed by the respondent-Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') against the appellants (who are defendants in the O.A., and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants'), and the orders passed on the application dated 7.2.2000 filed by the respondent-Bank for release of the amount realised by the sale of the hypothecated goods,
(2.) The O.A. is for the recovery of Rs. 35,44,357.73 with interest and costs from the appellant-defendants. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned final order dated 16.1.2002, accordingly passed the final order for the recovery of the above said amount. He also directed the appropriation of the amount realised by the sale of the hypothecated goods. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.
(3.) I will first deal with the final order. The learned Counsel for the appellant-defendants contends that the impugned final order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. He contends that despite the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT permitting the cross-examination of the two witnesses (whose affidavits by way of evidence have been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank) and though one of the witnesses has been partly cross-examined on behalf of the appellant-defendants, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has passed the impugned final order, without allowing opportunity to the appellant-defendants to complete the cross-examination of one of the witnesses, and also to cross-examine the other witness. He, therefore, contends that the impugned final order has to be set aside.;


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