SHOES EAST LIMITED Vs. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRUBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and with their consent the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short "Appellate Tribunal") dated 18th August, 2000 whereby an appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the respondent No. 2 i.e., the Canara Bank had filed an action for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14.50 crores plus interest and costs against the petitioners herein in the year 1996. The proceedings have been pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") since then and the respondent Bank is naturally interested in speedy disposal of the application for recovery. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has given us certain material date of proceedings in the O.A. (Original Application) pending before the Tribunal. It is pointed out that the written statement was filed by the petitioners only in May, 1997. On 3rd July, 1997, the parties on both sides were directed by the Tribunal to file affidavits by way of evidence.hereafter the matter proceeded for cross-examination of the Bank's witnesses who had filed the affidavits. The cross-examination of the witnesses of the Bank was completed and Bank's evidence was closed on 8th March, 1999. The case was thereafter fixed for the evidence of the petitioners herein on 15th March, 1999. On 15th March, 1999 the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave. The case was listed on 17th March, 1999. As the petitioners had not filed any affidavits by way of evidence till then (although the order to this effect was passed way back on 3rd July, 1997), their evidence was closed on the said date. At this stage Tribunal was required to hear the argument in main O.A. However, on 22nd March, 1999 the petitioners applied for permission to further cross-examine one of the witnesses of the Bank whose cross-examination had already been concluded earlier. This application was allowed on 12th April, 1999 and the matter was directed to be listed on 15th April, 1999 for the further cross examination of the said witness. However, on 15th April, 1999 or on the next date i.e., 16th April, 1999 to which the case was adjourned no cross-examination of the witness was conducted though the witness was present. The case was ultimately adjourned to 20th April, 1999 for this purpose. Instead of going ahead with cross-examination of the witness even on 20th April, 1999, the petitioners filed two new applications One was for amendment of the written statement. Amendment was sought mainly on two counts: (a) a plea was sought to be taken that the defendants had suffered losses on account of acts of the Bank; and (b) credit for the claims received by the Bank from the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation should be given to the defendants. The amendment was allowed on 21st April, 1999. This order of allowing the amendments was challenged by the Bank before this Court by way of a petition (C.M. (Main) No. 295/99) under Article 227 of the Constitution and the said petition is pending in this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the petition was, inter alia, directed against the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal particularly in view of the manner in which he was conducting the proceedings. Therefore, the Bank had prayed for stay of further proceedings as well. This Court stayed further proceedings before the Tribunal in the said petition by order dated 6th May, 1999. Soon after the new Presiding Officer of the Tribunal took over, the Bank moved an application for getting stay of proceedings vacated which was allowed by this Court on 2nd May, 2000. -

(3.) Proceedings accordingly started before the Tribunal again and the Tribunal passed certain orders on 15th May, 16th May and 17th May, 2000. Against these orders, petitioners herein filed C.M. (Main) No. 321/2000 in this Court. In this petition the main grievance of the petitioners was that their right to file reply/ , defence to the Bank's O.A. No. 784/96 was closed without giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity and Tribunal had fixed the matter for 9th June, 2000 for pronouncing the judgment/orders. This Court by order dated 26th May, 2000 issued notice in the said petition and stayed the operation of the impugned orders and further proceedings in the aforesaid O.A. Bank moved an application for vacation of order dated 26th May, 2000. Ultimately the said C.M. (Main) 321 /2000 was disposed of by order dated 22nd June, 2000. This order reads as under : "I heard Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.P. Narula, the learned Counsel for the respondents. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi shall hear the learned Counsel for parties on 3.7.2000 and shall dispose of the O.A. and I.As. after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. C.M. (M) disposed of."