SUBHASH PROJECT AND MARKETING LTD Vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Motilal B.Naik, -
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A. 660 of 2004 on 18.8.2001.
(2.) Heard Mr. Vivek Sharma, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukul Chandra, Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank.
From the narration of the facts by the learned Counsel for the appellant it would appear that the appellant filed I.A. 660/2004 under Section 22(c) of the DRT Act seeking dismissal of the O.A. on the premise that the evidence filed by way of affidavit is not in tune with Order 19 Rule 3 for the CPC and that it has not been duly attested. The matter was contested, and the Tribunal on coming to the conclusion that the application is devoid of any merits dismissed the application, against which the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) THE only grievance made out by Mr. Vivek Sharma, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in para 8 of the order that, so far as the prayer of the defendants regarding declaring that the affidavit is bad in law and cannot be looked into, is beyond the purview of this Tribunal. Whatever affidavit by way of evidence has been filed by the applicant. FI, that will be looked into. If there is any material defect, the defendants take the benefit of all the defects at the time of final arguments and by way of this I.A. the suit of the applicant Bank cannot be dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.