MADHU BAJAJ Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against similar orders dated 18.11.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing an application each filed in O.A. 599/2000 and O.A. 600/2000 respectively for sending the loan-documents to the National Forensic Laboratory for comparison and report by the handwriting expert or by an independent handwriting expert. Since the points arising for consideration in both the appeals are the same, I am disposing of both the appeals by this common order.

(2.) The respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 599/2000 before the DRT for the recovery of Rs. 50,64,667/- with interest and costs from the appellant, the proprietor of M/s. House of Travel. The respondent Bank has filed O.A. 600/2000 against the appellant for the Recovery of Rs. 38,54,590/- with interest and costs. The appellant has filed reply to each of the O.As. urging that none of the loan documents has been signed by her, that the entire transaction is the result of forgery committed by her husband Rupak Bajaj (since deceased), that she did not even approach the respondent Bank for any loan or avail any loan or execute any documents or furnish any FDR as security. The appellant has also urged that she did not issue any cheque or withdraw any amount. She has further urged that the O.A. is bad for non-joinder of Mr. S.K. Arora, the Manager of the Bank, who had committed fraud in enabling Mr. Rupak Bajaj to obtain the loan.

(3.) THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the respective applications filed by the appellant. THErefore, the appellant has approached this Tribunal with these appeals. THE respondent Bank did not file any reply, but advanced arguments opposing the appeals.