DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No. 76:

(2.) Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties this interlocutory application stands disposed of in the manner following.

(3.) The Debts Recovery Tribunal which is seized of the matter initiated by the Punjab national Bank is directed to deal with the issue pertaining to Canara Bank as well, including the counter claim of the Canara bank, if any. The Canara Bank would be at liberty to file the written statement within a period of four weeks from the date hereof. The Canara Bank would also be at liberty to lodge its claims as and by way of counter claim, if any, in the written statement to be filed by the Canara Bank, in terms of the leave granted in terms of this order and in the event of their being such a claim of counter claim as the case may be, the Debts Recovery tribunal shall consider the same upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Both the banks (Punjab National bank and Canara Bank) would be at liberty to adduce documentary evidence as well in support of their respective contentions. The tribunal, however, shall deal with the matter without being influenced by the tentative findings of the Reserve Bank of India. The rbi is not required to adjudicate the issue any further in terms of the earlier order of this Court D/- 11/2/1997 but is directed to render all possible assistance in the event such assistance is required by the Debts recovery Tribunal. Since the matter is pending for quite some time the Tribunal would do well to deal with and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. All the parties are directed to render all possible assistance and co operation to the tribunal in the disposal of the dispute. The parties are also directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12/ 3/2001 and the Tribunal would be at liberty to fix the next date/dates of hearing as per its convenience. Let it be clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the observations or tentative findings of the Reserve Bank of india and we are not expressing any opinion in regard thereto. Since Mr. Jaideep Gupta has not filed any counter to the application filed by the Canara Bank, he on behalf of the bank states on instructions that the bank does not admit the allegations contained in the petition. The said statement is placed on record. Let it be further clarified that the tribunal would deal with the matter in its own way without being inhibited by any observations of this Court.