SHIVAGANGA LEATHER CRAFTS Vs. CHIEF MANAGER CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 29.10.2013 passed on I.A. No. 2976/2013 in O.A. No. 879/1998. The order is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The instant case has a checkered history. At the first instance, when the petitioners had not been granted opportunity of cross-examining AW-1, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P. No. 14158/2007. Despite this Court by its order dated 26.11.2007 directing the Tribunal to permit cross-examination, the same had not been permitted. Ultimately, when the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal was passed against the petitioners, the petitioners had approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short the 'DRAT'), Chennai. The DRAT while considering URA No. 47/2008 had taken note of the fact that the direction issued by this Court had not been complied and therefore, there was denial of opportunity of cross-examination of AW-1. In that view, the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration after permitting cross-examination of AW-1.

(2.) Subsequent to the remand, AW-1 has been permitted to be cross-examine. The respondent-Bank had also filed the affidavits of AW-2 to AW-4 in support of their case. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners once again sought opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, whose affidavits had been filed in support of the case of the respondent-Bank. Since, the opportunity sought for had not been acceded to by the Tribunal, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P. No. 16134/2013 which was disposed of on 09.07.2013. This Court had indicated that the Tribunal at that stage was justified inasmuch as the petitioners herein had not filed an application seeking leave to cross-examine and if such application is filed, it would be open for the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the same one way or the other in accordance with law.

(3.) Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has filed an application and the said application in IA. No. 2976/2013 has now been disposed of by the order dated 29.10.2013 impugned at Annexure-A. The respondent has filed the objection statement to the instant petition and the action of the Tribunal is sought to be justified. Though detailed contentions have been urged and the learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the provisions contained in Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Others, 2002 AIR(SC) 1479, I am of the opinion that the correctness or otherwise of the order need not be gone into at this stage since from the perusal of the order impugned, it is seen that the Tribunal was of the view that the reasons indicated in the application was not sufficient. At the same time, what is also to be noticed is that the matter has been pending before the Tribunal for quite some time.