P K NARAYANA KAIMAL Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR
LAWS(DR)-2006-6-5
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 22,2006

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THE unsuccessful 6th defendant in the T.A. is the appellant herein.
(2.) The case of the appellant/6th defendant is that, he is not liable to pay any amount under the promissory note, as he was not at all in India on the date on which the promissory note and other connected documents said to have been executed on 9.1.1991. It is further stated in the General Body Meeting of the 1st defendant Company held on 10.1.1991. Resolution was said to have been passed to remove him from the Directorship, and he was removed. The appellant, therefore, contends that he is not at all liable to pay any amount to the respondent Bank. The written statement was filed to that effect by the appellant along with the other defendants 8 and 9. The case of the respondent Bank is that based upon the documents produced by the 1st defendant company, the suit was filed. Further case of the respondent. Bank is that the 6th defendant does not dispute his signature in the promissory note dated 9.1.1991, and also in other documents. The suit was filed on 6.1.1994, and therefore, the claim made by the respondent Bank was well within time.
(3.) THE plea taken by the appellant/6th defendant was exhaustively and carefully considered by the DRT, which has observed, "THE signature of D 6 in the documents (Exs. A 9 to A 15) having been so admitted by D 6, no doubt, it is up to him to prove his pica that some blank forms signed by him and kept in custody of Dl had subsequently come into the custody of the applicant Bank and so were those signed forms forged into Exs. A 9 to A 15. THEre were absolutely no efforts taken by D 6 to prove his aforesaid plea. THE position being so, from the available materials on evidence, the applicant's case stands proved that the defendants had on 18.1.1990 as well as on 9.1.1991 executed documents thereby offering security and guaranteeing repayment of the advances availed by Dl. THE defendants cannot be heard to say that they had not executed the relevant documents in favour of the Bank.";


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