SITARAM SINGHANIA Vs. INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2004-12-9
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on December 23,2004

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.) THE respondent-Industrial Finance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Corporation') has filed O.A. 194/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant (2nd defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant -defendant') and 10 others for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it from the appellant-defendant and the 1st defendant, and also for certain reliefs against the defendants 2 to 4 in the O.A. THE appellant-defendant filed I.A. 48/2004 before the DRT for giving a direction to the respondent-Corporation to make discovery on oath and production of the documents as mentioned in paragraph 12 of that application. THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 8.6.2004, allowed the said application in part directing the respondent-Corporation to produce the documents detailed in sub-paras (a), (d), (e) and (g) of para 12 of the said application, and rejected the request in other respects.
(2.) Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has filed this appeal against that order, only in so far as the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT had rejected the request regarding the document mentioned in sub-para (c) of para 12 of that application, i.e., regarding 'the Scheme of Revival of LML-referred to in the multipartite agreement.' The respondent-Corporation has filed a suitable reply opposing this appeal. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the documents with regard to which the appellant-defendant had made the application were all referred to and relied upon in the O.A. He contends that the appellant-defendant is alleged to have executed a guarantee deed securing the repayment of the money allegedly payable by the 1st defendant, whereas, no money was advanced to the 1st defendant by the respondent-Corporation, but the liability is sought to be fastened on the basis of certain documents allegedly executed to rehabilitate and to promote another company-LML Limited, which has not even been made a party. THE learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the respondent-Corporation has stated in the O.A. that the claim arises from out of an alleged multipartite agreement dated 28.12.90, that the said multipartite agreement refers to a scheme for LML's Revival, but the said scheme of revival has not been produced.;


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