STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. VIVEK TEXTILE MILLS
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) HEARD both the sides. Perused the proceedings.
(2.) The appellants/State Bank of India are aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 92 in Original Application No. 1028 of 1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed application made by the defendants for cross-examination of the applicant Bank's witness on the ground that there was ambiguity in the pleadings and directed the Bank to keep its Assistant Manager, Mr. Abhijit G. Pangarekar present on the next date. Hence, the appeal.
I have heard Mr. Satish Shetye for the appellants and Mr. Rishabh Shah for the respondents. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned order.
(3.) GRIEVANCE of the appellants is that the impugned order is erroneous because actually no case was made out by the defendants in their application for seeking permission to cross-examine the Bank's witness. Oral grievance of the appellants is that list of questions was given by the defendants only to the learned Presiding Officer and its copy was not served upon them. It is also submitted by Mr. Shetye that as per the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors., II (2002) BC 194 (SC)=II (2002) SLT 586=(2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 275, there is no inherent right given to a litigant for cross-examination and that a strong case has to be made by a party to come up with such a request. He submitted that no such case is made out by the respondents/defendants in their application and, therefore, the learned Presiding Officer ought not to have allowed their application.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.