Decided on August 11,2005



Motilal B.Naik, - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order made by the Tribunal on 29.8.2001 in O.A. 683/95 the present appeal has been filed. Few facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposing of this appeal are recorded hereunder:
(2.) The appellant claims to be the legal representative of the deceased 2nd defendant in the suit instituted in the year 1979 by the 1st respondent-Bank before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, seeking to recover a sum of more than Rs. 13 lakhs. This appellant claims that the 2nd defendant died when the suit was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, and that the fact of demise of the 2nd defendant was intimated to the respondent-Bank by presenting two letters dated 15.7.1991 and 22.2.1992 respectively. After constitution of the DRTs in the country pursuant to the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit came to be transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the DRT, Delhi in the year 1995. Thereafter, the suit was taken up by the DRT for consideration. The Tribunal seems to have issued default notice to the defendants in the year 1996, which was received by this appellant and others. The defendants seem to have made appearance before the Tribunal on 24.5.1996, and filed an application on 31.7.1996 bringing to the notice of the Court that the 2nd defendant is no more alive, information to that effect was also given to the respondent-Bank on 15.7.1991 and 22.2.1992 by serving appropriate letters by obtaining necessary acknowledgement, and on account of delay in taking steps for bringing legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant by the respondent-Bank, the suit got abated against 2nd defendant, consequently, the liability against the 2nd defendant got discharged. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank has filed reply and also a few petitions to bring the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant on record, to set aside the abatement. All these miscellaneous applications came up before the Tribunal on various dates. However, the Tribunal, by order dated 29.8.2001, allowed the applications filed by the respondent-Bank condoning the delay, but, dismissed the application filed by this appellant seeking discharge of liability on account the suit being abated against the 2nd defendant.
(3.) MR. Manish Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellant, stated that by the application dated 31.7.1996 it was specifically brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the demise of the 2nd defendant was brought to the notice of the respondent-Bank on 15.7.1991 and 22.2.1992, but, the Tribunal, without recording the correctness of the statement and by not verifying the stand taken by the respondent-Bank with regard to Bank's official stamp, only on an erroneous view of matter, rejected the application and ordered the application filed by the respondent-Bank. Counsel stated that the manner in which the matter was decided by the Tribunal has caused immense harm, and that the benefit of lapses on the part of respondent the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant could have got, is lost by virtue of this order, and stated that this is a fit case which deserves interference from this Court.;

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