S VALLIAPPAN Vs. INDIAN BANK
LAWS(DR)-2006-1-10
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 19,2006

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THE petitioner/appellant filed four Applications IA-374 to 377 of 2004 in OA-781/2001, and they all came to be dismissed by order dated 2.5.2005 passed by the DRT-II at Chennai. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been filed.
(2.) Appeal MA-16/2005 has been filed against the dismissal of IA-374/2004 filed before the DRT, to implead seven parties as defendants in the OA MA-17/2006 has been filed as against the dismissal of IA-375/2004, praying the Tribunal to permit to make corrections in the reply statement. MA-18/2006 has been filed as against the dismissal of IA-376/2004 to permit the petitioner to file Additional Reply Statement MA-19/2006 has filed against the dismissal of IA-377/2004 praying the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the applicant Bank's witness. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Advocate for the petitioner/appellant would state the petitioner is one of the Director and guarantor and he alone was singled out and the original application was filed in OA-781/2001. The appellant has filed his reply statement and, thereafter, the respondent Bank has filed its proof affidavit and only from the proof affidavit, the petitioner/appellant came to know of certain new facts which necessitated him to file all these applications. It is submitted that the respondent Bank has filed another OA in OA-1876/2001, in which all the necessary parties were impleaded and all those parties are also necessary parties to this OA, as there was a common cause of action for both the OAs. It is further submitted that this appellant was not made as a party in the other OA namely, OA-1876/2001 and, therefore, he would not be able to make out a case in this OA and only for that purpose, he has taken out necessary applications to implead the parties and for other purposes. After having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent, it is made out that the respondent Bank has filed a separate OA-1876/2001 against all the persons concerned and in the said OA the present appellant was not made as a party. It is also an admitted position that the appellant alone has been singled out and the present OA has been filed against him. It is the case of the appellant that the other persons who are made as a party in the other OA are also necessary and proper parties for proper adjudication of this OA, as a common cause of action had arisen for filing of both the OAs. It is also a fact that the present appellant along with the other Directors have borrowed the amount and subsequently the present appellant and resigned from Directorship and he had also revoked his guarantee. These things could not be established in the absence of necessary parties and they are all parties to the other OA. In these circumstances, I feel that they are all necessary and proper parties for proper adjudication of this OA also.
(3.) AS the respondent has filed his proof affidavit and only from that, the appellant came to know of certain new facts, which were not available to him at the time of filing the reply statement and hire the request of the appellant is justified in seeking permission to file additional reply statement.;


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