NARAYAN AVACHITRAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties.

(2.) THE challenge made in this writ petition is to the power, authority and quantification of the costs imposed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The facts, in brief, relevant for resolution of the controversy are that the respondent No. 1 Bank had filed Special CS No. 472 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur for recovery of Rs. 25,34,543. 57 against the respondent No. 2 and the present petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was defendant No. 1 in the said civil suit. The present petitioner was defendant No. 2 in the suit. Petitioner, after service of summons and entering into appearance, had filed Written Statement somewhere on 19-11-1996. In the Written Statement, present petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 1 was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Karuna Traders and had raised Cash Credit Limit from the respondent No. 1 Bank. He, amongst other pleas, denied the knowledge of terms and conditions of the said Cash Credit Limit granted in favour of the respondent No. 1. After framing of issues, said suit came to be transferred initially to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai and was numbered as OA No. 943 of 99. In view of the establishment of the Tribunal at Nagpur, OA was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, the "tribunal") and renumbered as OA No. 211 of 2001.

(3.) THE present petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 were served with summons. The petitioner appeared and filed MA No. 288 of 2002 for direction to the respondent No. 1 Bank to produce certain documents. The said application was rejected on merits with exemplary costs of Rs. 5000/- payable to the respondent No. 1 Bank. The petitioner, at the stage of filing of the counter-affidavit filed an application for amendment of the Written Statement. The petitioner was required to file said application for amendment regarding plea of fraud since the forum was changed and matter was to be decided on affidavit. The respondent No. 1 Bank filed reply to the application opposing amendment on the ground that the Written Statement was filed on 19-11-1996 and the plea which is sought to be amended, is belated. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said application being IA No. 749 of 2002 by its order dated 11-3-2003 with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the respondent No. 1 Bank and on failure of the petitioner to pay the costs, it was directed that the Interim Recovery Certificate shall be issued against the petitioner. Interlocutory Application No. 120/03 was filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 11-3-2003. This application is also rejected by the Tribunal with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to vide order dated 10-4-2003, the respondent No. 1 Bank. Similar order for issuance of Interim Recovery Certificate was passed in case the petitioner failed to pay the amount of costs. At the same time, the application being MA No. 121/03 filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file documents in support of the Written Statement was rejected by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 10-4-2003.