MONICA ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in view of Rule 9 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as the 1993 Rules), the respondent-Bank has to produce all the documents, not only relied upon, but also referred to in the O.A, He also points out that as per the averments in the O.A., the principal debtor had approached the Bank in 1994, and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 3 crores was disbursed on 8.7.1994, that the principal debtor had also executed and delivered an agreement hypothecating all assets, the stock, finance and receivables, lease rentals, etc. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant allegedly executed a deed of guarantee in 1996 only and, therefore, he cannot be made liable for the transaction which had taken place earlier. He points out that this is one of the contentions raised in answer to the O.A. He, therefore, contends that the documents referred to in O.A. have to be furnished to the appellant.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant to approach the concerned DRT with a fresh application, specifically giving the dates and details of the documents, the copies of which are required. If and when such an application is made, the learned Presiding Officer of the concerned DRT will consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations contained in this order, and after giving opportunity to the other side to put forward its case.