- (1.) HEARD Sri R.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for respondent -Bank.
(2.) THE short issue raised by petitioner is that on 4.4.2013 when the matter was put up for hearing before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRAT"), it is evident from order -sheet of DRAT that matter was not argued by parties, and still the judgment was reserved and has been pronounced which is nothing but a sheer denial of adequate opportunity of hearing. It is further said that initially petitioner intended to enter into compromise and also filed the same but the same could not be finalized and, therefore, the matter was to be decided on merits on 4.4.2013. The parties have not argued the matter, yet DRAT, by recording a self contradictory order, reserved the judgment and has delivered the same wherein it has noticed various arguments of parties, though there was no occasion to address the Tribunal, as is evident from the order sheet. The order -sheet of 4.4.2013 reads as under: "Parties have not argued the matter properly. Still the matter was heard. The case is reserved for judgment."
(3.) IT is difficult to understand as to when the parties did not argue the matter properly, then what was the occasion to hear the matter and if hearing could not be taken properly, the matter could have been heard on the very next date, but the DRAT has reserved the judgment and from the judgment delivered, it appears that the matter has been argued at length though the order -sheet does not show so. Both the counsels for parties agreed that let the appeal be decided by Tribunal afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.;