RAJKUMAR SUDARSHAN AGARWAL Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL is admitted and by consent heard forthwith. Respondent No. 3 waives service and the respondent No. 3 is the only contest ing party. Other respondents need not be heard here. They had not even appeared before the Tribunal.

(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single judge on 16-4-2003. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the order passed by the debts Recovery Tribunal and also by the order passed by the Debts Recovery appellate Tribunal at Mumbai.

(3.) THE facts, in brief, can be narrated as under : the respondent No. 3/bank had instituted proceedings against respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to banks and Financial Institutions Act ("the Act" for short) for recovery of Rs. 12,65,642/ -. The respondent No. 4 was the principal borrower of the loan from the respondent No. 3 Bank. The appellant and the other respondents were impleaded as the respondents before the Tribunal in the capacity of the guarantors for the respondent No. 4. It appears from the proceedings that except the appellant no other respondent contested the claim of the respondent No. 3/bank. The appellant appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement on 26-3-2003 contesting the claim of the Bank inter alia on the ground that he had not signed the alleged guarantee papers and he was not a guarantor for the loan given by the Bank to the respondent No. 4. At the outset, in paragraph No. 1 of his reply, he seriously contested the claim of the bank that he was a guarantor for the respondent No. 4. He, therefore, filed two separate applications on 20-5-2002, one to delete his name from the O. A. and the other to request the Tribunal to send the alleged signature on the bank guarantee papers for the opinion of any hand writing expert who would compare the specimen signatures of the appellant which he had given with his written statement. The Bank filed its reply to the said applications to oppose the prayers of the appellant.