IDEB PROJECTS PVT. LTD Vs. HDFC BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked Article 227 of the Constitution to call into question the order dated 06.03.2014 of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai ('DRAT' for short) in MA No.3/2014. That MA No.3/2014 was preferred from the order dated 07.11.2013 of learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short), Bangalore, and that order of DRT was an order made on Interim Application No.4835/2012 seeking to cross-examine AW.1. The Interim Application No.4835/2012 was made by the original defendants who are petitioners before this Court and that application was allowed by DRT only on the basis that the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners herein appeared to be containing higher degree of probabilities. Earlier to that decisive part of the order, only the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners herein were recorded and that order came to be challenged by the respondent herein before DRAT. The aforesaid order of DRT permitting cross-examination of a witness of the respondent herein has been set aside by the impugned order of DRAT practically by recording the reason that, "It is seen that as per the statement made by the Appellant Bank all relevant documents are already available before the Tribunal below and therefore the question examination of the bank's witness does not arise." It is also observed by DRAT while allowing the appeal of the respondent herein that the petitioners can base their submissions on the documents already available, and therefore, the order of DRT was liable to be set aside.

(2.) Upon appearance of learned senior counsel Mr.Sreevatsa for the respondent-bank herein, on caveat, the petitioners were heard in extenso for final disposal at the admission stage.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr.Ajesh Kumar Shankar appearing for the petitioners vehemently agued that, as was successfully argued before DRT, the petitioners had raised serious disputes regarding the sale of machineries by the respondent-bank and appropriation of the sale proceeds from such sales. He further submitted that DRT was of the opinion that cross-examination of the witness of the bank would help to have a clearer picture regarding controversies in question and if the respondentbank had no intention of suppressing material facts or cover up its own misdeeds, it ought not to have opposed the application of the petitioners for cross-examination of the witness. He also submitted that it would be denial of fairness, fair-play and principles of natural justice, if the witness of the bank who deposed before DRT by filing an affidavit were not allowed to be cross-examined.