HIMALAYA UDYOG Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION
LAWS(DR)-2004-10-1
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 14,2004

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.) HEARD arguments of Mr. H.C. Arora for the appellants and also the arguments of Mr. J.S. Attri for the respondent. The respondent-Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation filed suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the appellants/defendants for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it on 18.4.1991. The same was subsequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur as O.A. 147/97. The learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur passed the ex parte final order dated 10.3.1999 for the recovery or Rs. 13,43,778.95 with costs and interest @14% per annum from 18.4.1991 till realisation from the appellants/defendants.
(2.) The appellants/defendants filed the Miscellaneous Application 86/2000 for setting aside the above said ex parte order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (since the subject matter of the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT, Chandigarh, which was subsequently constituted). The learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2002 allowing the said Miscellaneous Application 86/2000, and setting aside the ex parte final order, but subject to the condition that the appellants/defendants deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs within two months with the respondent-corporation, to be adjusted towards the claim in the O.A. in case respondent-corporation succeeds in the claim or to be refunded to the appellants/defendants with interest in case the respondent-corporation fails in the claim. The appellants/defendants were also ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent-corporation. Aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order which imposes the condition to deposit the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, the appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal. The respondent-corporation has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal, and the appellants/ defendants have also filed a rejoinder.
(3.) 1 have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.;


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