B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) RELYING upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Gemini Arts (P.) Ltd. v. Indian Bank [1999] 95 Comp. Cas. 345, it was submitted by the learned counsel Shri Kothari that though this petition is filed against the interlocutory order this Court should entertain this petition as the post of Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is vacant and, therefore, his appeal could not be decided till date.
(2.) BEFORE dealing with the aforesaid submission, a few facts are required to be stated in this matter, which are as under : The petitioner is a private limited company and respondent No. 3, the State Bank of Bikancr and Jaipur filed a suit for recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal - -respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for recovering huge amount of more than one crore which was taken by the petitioner from the bank by way of loan under the provisions of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the Act') which was registered as O.A. No. 302 of 1996 pending before respondent No. 1 Tribunal. During the pendency of that suit, the petitioner filed an application on 11 -12 -1997, stating that the bank had made certain material alterations in the revenue documents which are sought to be relied upon by the bank in the suit filed by the bank, therefore, the said documents be called from the office of the Registrar of Companies, Jaipur, and produce it before the Tribunal. The said interim application for production of document was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 4 -3 -1998 (Annexure 1} on the grounds that: (i) on earlier occasions also such applications made by the company were rejected, (ii) the evidence is also led by the parties on 31 -3 -1997, and the matter was kept for final arguments on 2 -5 -1997, and (iii) the company in its reply admitted about the term loan of Rs. 47 lakhs and the loan document, therefore, the application was without any basis. The learned Tribunal further held that the bank had also accepted the fact in its reply, therefore, there is no question of calling for the loan papers of the contract from the Registrar of Companies nor any enquiry is required to be made in the matter.
(3.) THE Tribunal also observed that for hearing such applications a brief procedure is prescribed under the Act but the petitioner had already taken six adjournments for the purpose of final arguments and on seventh adjournment such application was submitted by the company, but the Tribunal made it clear that the application was not rejected on that ground. The Tribunal also made it clear that so far the question regarding stamp duty, the matter will be heard on that point at the time of final arguments. Accordingly, the matter was fixed on 4 -5 -1998, by the Tribunal.;