A K MUHAMMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be the defendant in Original Application No.561 of 2017 filed by the respondent bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I ('DRT' for short) Kerala.

(2.) The petitioner says that his specific contention before the DRT is that the guarantee agreement dated 30.12.2015 based on which, the bank is proceeding against him is opposed to public policy, it consequentially being null and void; and further, that two other agreements, which are produced on record as Annexures 2 and 8 respectively, allegedly having not been performed upon by the applicant bank, no liability can be cast upon him. The petitioner submits that he has raised these contentions as a counter-claim, along with the written statement and therefore, that the DRT ought to have registered it as such on this basis.

(3.) The petitioner's allegation in this writ petition is that the DRT, however, issued Ext.P3 order rejecting his request for registration of a counter claim for the reason that he had "neither divulged the amount in the nature of the claim nor paid requisite fees and therefore, that the counter claim cannot be registered." The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 as being illegal and unlawful.