L T OVERSEAS LTD Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), dismissing the application filed by the defendants 1 to 3 (applicants herein; hereinafter referred to as the appellant-defendants'), seeking leave of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent-Bank's witness Suraj Kalra.

(2.) The 1st respondent - Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Bank") has filed O.A. 343/98 against the appellants (as defendants I to 3) and the 2nd respondent herein (as the 4th defendant) for (he recovery of Rs. 99,32,224.93 with interest and costs.

(3.) THE appellant-defendants filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking leave of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent - Bank's witness Suraj Kalra, whose affidavit by way of evidence has been filed by the respondent - Bank. In this application, the appellant-defendants have referred to certain paragraphs of the O.A, filed by the respondent-Bank and have also mentioned the reason as to why they seek cross-examination of the respondent-Bank's witness. THE respondent-Bank filed its reply to this application. THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has observed in the impugned order that the case of the respondent-Bank is based upon documentary evidence, and that the respondent-Bank's witness Suraj Kalva has filed his affidavit by way of evidence on the basis of the records. He has also observed that the case of the appellant-defendants that the 4th defendant (who was the company secretary of the Ist defendant-company) did not enter into any valid contract with the respondent-Bank does not require any cross-examination since, the appellant-defendants have not disputed in their written statement the contract between the respondent-Bank and the Ist defendant. He further observed that what has been disputed by the appellant-defendants in their written statement is the authority of the company secretary to enter into the contract on behalf of the Ist defendant with the respondent-Bank. So observing, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the application filed by the appellant-defendants.