SATISH VOHRA Vs. CANARA BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Motilal B.Naik, -
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the DR-I in IA No. 720/2002.
(2.) Heard Mr. M.C. Kochhar, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Seema Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.
From the narration of facts of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would appear that in the suit instituted by the respondent Bank herein for recovery of certain amounts, this applicant was arrayed as defendant No. 7 in the suit. Before filing the written statement, the appellant filed an IA No. 67/2002 on 23.1.2002 seeking furnishing of better particulars enabling the applicant to file his written statement. However, that application seems to have been dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed his written statement on 6.5.2002.
(3.) IT so happened that the Company Court seems to have directed the Official Liquidator to permit the appellant to inspect the records of the company. Accordingly, the appellant to inspect the records of the company. Accordingly, the appellant seems to have inspected the records on 3rd and 4th January, 2002. During such inspection, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he came across the minutes of the consortium held on 20.4.1990 wherein the consortium decided not to insist on personal guarantee of Mr. Vohra who is not an active Director. Thus, according to the Counsel for the appellant, as a result of this resolution of the consortium, there is no liability on this appellant and, as such, the appellant desired to seek an appropriate amendment on these lines in the written statement and filed IA No. 720/2002 seeking permission to amend the pleading in the written statement. Counsel stated, the Court below, in a routine manner rejected the plea only on the grounds that the appellant is trying to drag on the matter for an indefinite period.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.