S M MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE Vs. UCO BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15.9.2005 in IA-60/2005 in OA-1525/2001 passed by the DRT-II, Chennai.
(2.) The appellants have filed an application seeking permission of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent Bank's witness and the same came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondent Bank.
The appellants, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the DRT, contended, they are utter strangers to the loan transaction and the alleged guarantee document as well as creation of equitable mortgage were of fraudulent acts done, without the consent and knowledge of the appellants and that could be proved only by the cross-examination of the respondent's witness.
(3.) THE respondent Bank in their counter have stated that though the appellants denied their liability to pay the claim amount as guarantors, they have not clewed the execution of the guarantee documents or deposit of the deeds relating to their property and in fact, the appellants submitted representation for compromise of the OA claim for Rs. 60 lakh, out of which, they have also paid Rs. 50, 000/- as part payment on one occasion and Rs. 3 lakh on another occasion and failed to pay the balance amount and as such, no case has been made out for cross-examination. THE appellants have filed the petition only with a view to protract the proceedings.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.