Decided on February 07,1996

Sudhir Jalan And Another Appellant
Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal And Others Respondents


N.K. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.)Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Saptangsu Basu appearing with the learned Advocate Sm. Sudhesna Bagchi and the learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 Mr. P.K. Dutta appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Dutta, Mr. Dutta undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in course of this day. Let that undertaking be recorded. No one is appearing on behalf of the other opposite parties. Let the affidavit of service affirmed on 16.1.96 be kept on record. Considered the materials on record. An application for extension of further stay of the interim order has come up for hearing. By consent of the parties the main revisional application is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on the day's list for hearing, along with the application for extension of further stay filed in Court on 5.2.96, and both the matters can be disposed of by one order and/or judgement.
(2.)This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the fact that the Punjab National Bank, opposite party no. 2 herein, made an application under Sec. 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, with the Debt Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act and Rules') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, and the same has been registered there as case no. O.A./5/94 and the case proceeded. By that application the Bank claim that there is a due of about Rs. 2 crores and odd recoverable from the petitioners. The case proceeded and it arrived at the stage of cross -examination of witnesses. At this stage the petitioners made an application for supply of the copy of documents that has been disclosed by the petitioners in their affidavit as contemplated under Sub -Section (2) of Section" 2 of the Act. The learned Tribunal Judge rejected that prayer on an observation that "there is no provision either in the law or in the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act 1993 or rules thereunder for inspection of original documents." Adjournment was also prayed for but no such adjournment was granted. On the contrary cross -examination of the witness being witness no. 1 was closed and 12.12.95 was fixed for hearing. Ultimately an adjournment was granted upon the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that they would move this court in revision challenging this order.
(3.)Mr. Basu in this background of the fact contended on behalf of the petitioners that on a wrong understanding of law the learned Tribunal Judge came to a finding that the Tribunal has not the power to give inspection of the original documents as the Act or the rules thereunder do not provide any provision for the same.

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