P VASANTHA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed these petitions for transfer of the TA-393/2001 & TA-355/2001 from DRT-II, Chennai, to any other Tribunal. THE respondent Bank filed TA-393/2001 against the 1st appellant and TA-355/2001 against the 2nd appellant, before the DRT. In TA-355/2001, Mr. G. Purushothaman is the principal borrower and his wife Mrs. P. Vasantha is the guarantor. In TA-393/2001, Mrs. P. Vasantha, the 1st appellant is the principal borrower and her husband Mr. G. Purushothaman, the 2nd appellant is the guarantor. THEse cases are pending before DRT-II, Chennai. THE appellants contend that the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, is very biased in conducting the case and the appellants have apprehension that there will not be any fair trial before the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, regarding their cases.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1st appellant in MA-253/2002 filed IA-717/2002 in TA-355/2001 and that petition has not been disposed of and when the appellant's Counsel requested the Tribunal to conduct inquiry in IA-717/2002, the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, directed the Counsel to conduct the cross-examination of the applicant Bank's witness and the Presiding Officer refused to take up the interim application. He further submitted that even during cross-examination the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, did not permit the appellants to fully put forth questions for cross-examination and the appellant's Counsel was not given full opportunity for conducting the cross-examination and when the appellant's Counsel started with the cross-examination, the appellant's Counsel was shocked to find out that the same set of questions that had been asked in respect of TA-355/ 2001 had been typed for TA-393/2001 and the respondent Bank had made some corrections regarding that amount. He further submitted that in TA-393/2001, when the case was taken up by the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, the argument of the respondent Bank was heard and the appellant's Counsel represented that the case was pending before the High Court and the Presiding Officer also directed the appellant's Counsel to file written arguments and the representation of the appellant's Counsel was not considered by the Presiding Officer and the facts would establish the high-handed attitude of the Presiding Officer-DRT-II and since the Presiding Officer is acting in a prejudicial manner the appellant feels that he would not get a fair hearing in a prejudicial manner the appellant feels that he would not get a fail-hearing in both the cases and the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, is highly biased against the appellants and so the cases have to be transferred from DRT-II, Chennai, to any other Tribunal.

(3.) THE appellant did not pay the amount as per the compromise settlement. That compromise settlement offer was also cancelled by means of the letter of the Bank dated 10.11.2001. So, it is no longer open to the appellant to pursue the compromise settlement by filing IA in the year 2002. So, it is futile on the part of the appellant to contend that without disposing of the IA-717/2002, the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, cannot continue with the trial. THE Presiding Officer, DRT-II, has rightly directed to conduct the cross-examination of the witnesses. So, it cannot be stated that there is biased attitude on the part of the Presiding Officer, DRT-II. It is stated in the Affidavit that when the witness stated that the appellant's Counsel does not know anything regarding the Bank accounts and procedures, the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, was only a mute spectator and did not control the witness and if anything is to be asked in the cross-examination it is open to the appellant to put questions to that witness and lead evidence. Further, it is stated that the evidence was taken in common in both the matters and the evidence was typed and only some corrections with regard to the amount was made. Both the appellants are husband and wife. For the loan borrowed by the husband the wife stood as the guarantor and for the loan borrowed by the wife the husband stood as the guarantor. So the evidence was let in pertaining to that case. If the appellants want to put some more questions or cross-examine the witness in any other aspect, it is open to the appellants to put the questions to the witnesses and get the evidence recorded. It cannot be stated that the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, was acting in a biased manner. What all the appellants want to examine the witness, it is open to the appellant to lead evidence in that aspect and also cross-examine the witness in any point the appellants wish to cross-examine. Viewed at any angle there are no valid grounds at all to suggest that Presiding Officer, DRT-II, was biased and the appellants would not get fair trial before the DRT-II.