S SHANMUGAM Vs. LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to decide the interim application in I.A.Sr. No. 1495 of 2010 in O.A. No. 100 of 2007 on merits and thereafter decide the main O.A. No. 100 of 2007 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent/bank has filed O.A.No. 89 of 2007 (old OA No. 385 of 2001) before the third respondent/Tribunal against the petitioner herein for recovery of Rs.7,24,76,698/- together with interest at contractual rate at the rate of 22.5%. During the pendency of the Original Application, the first respondent bank assigned its assests vide an assignment agreement dated 25.01.2007 to the second respondent. During the pendency of O.A. No. 89 of 2007, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 668 of 2005 under Section 6 of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act to inspect and take copies of all entries in the Banker's Book together with all the relevant vouchers, challans etc., with particular reference to the delivery orders issued by the bank with the assistance of a Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal, after considering the argument of both sides dismissed the I.A. No. 668 of 2005 on 15.12.2009 with costs of Rs.3,000/- on the ground that the petitioner has filed the said petition after long lapse of time only to delay the proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.A. SR No. 1495 of 2010 before the Tribunal praying for a direction to direct the Senior Terminal Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Korrukupet Terminal, Kathivakkam High Road, Kathivakkam, Chennai 600 019 to produce the file relating to the key cash credit relating to the petitoner's account, but the same was not numbered. As against the same, the present writ petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the third respondent/Tribunal to decide the interim application in I.A.Sr. No. 1495 of 2010 in O.A. No. 100 of 2007 on merits and thereafter decide the main O.A. No. 100 of 2007.

(3.) We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rajamanickam along with Mr. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.