BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LTD Vs. PUHKAR MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. V. Raja Rao, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank but neither of the impleaded respondents has appeared this day, in spite of the due service of notice (repeatedly) upon each of them.

(2.) January 17, 1992 is the relevant day and date when the applicant Bank instituted one suit by way of presenting a plaint before the Hon'ble Justice Padma Khastagir (as Her Lordship was then) after impleading the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By the said presentation of plaint the suit No. 49 of 1992 there was specifically a prayer for a decree directing those impleaded respondents to pay either jointly or severally the suit amount of Rs. 15,17,869.49 p., together with a further interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum with quarterly rest from January 10, 1992 till date of realisation. Besides the above, there were other prayers expressly contained in that plaint.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, and during the pendency of the present suit No. 49 of 1992, it was transferred to the learned Transferring Tribunal where the Suit No. 49 of 1002 got itself renumbered as TA 47 of 1998; and any controversy whether such transferred suit or claim case is maintainable cannot receive any strength or support from this Tribunal. Accordingly, the objection No. 1 which has been found clustering round the question of maintainability of TA 47 of 1998 which has originally been contained in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 meets a straightaway rejection; accordingly the said objection has been rejected.