L T OVERSEAS LTD Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), dismissing the application filed by the defendants 1 to 3 (applicants herein; hereinafter referred to as the appellant-defendants'), seeking leave of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent-Bank's witness Suraj Kalra.
(2.) The 1st respondent - Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Bank") has filed O.A. 343/98 against the appellants (as defendants I to 3) and the 2nd respondent herein (as the 4th defendant) for (he recovery of Rs. 99,32,224.93 with interest and costs.
The appellant-defendants have filed a written statement to the O.A. disputing their liability. The 4th defendant has also filed a written statement to the O.A.
(3.) THE appellant-defendants filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking leave of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent - Bank's witness Suraj Kalra, whose affidavit by way of evidence has been filed by the respondent - Bank. In this application, the appellant-defendants have referred to certain paragraphs of the O.A, filed by the respondent-Bank and have also mentioned the reason as to why they seek cross-examination of the respondent-Bank's witness. THE respondent-Bank filed its reply to this application. THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has observed in the impugned order that the case of the respondent-Bank is based upon documentary evidence, and that the respondent-Bank's witness Suraj Kalva has filed his affidavit by way of evidence on the basis of the records. He has also observed that the case of the appellant-defendants that the 4th defendant (who was the company secretary of the Ist defendant-company) did not enter into any valid contract with the respondent-Bank does not require any cross-examination since, the appellant-defendants have not disputed in their written statement the contract between the respondent-Bank and the Ist defendant. He further observed that what has been disputed by the appellant-defendants in their written statement is the authority of the company secretary to enter into the contract on behalf of the Ist defendant with the respondent-Bank. So observing, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the application filed by the appellant-defendants.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.