HAZARIMAL MILAPCHAND SOORANA JAIPUR Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REJECTION of an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Original Defendants for directing investigation into the alleged fraud committed by the Bank in a pending suit has given rise to this Appeal preferred by the Defendants who are hereinafter referred to as Appellants.

(2.) FACTS in brief are as below : the Applicant Bank had filed suit No. 335/82 on 29. 6. 82 against the Appellants in the District Court of Jaipur for Recovery of rs. 40,74,431. 56. Leave to defend the said summary suit was granted on 19. 2. 83. The precious and semi-precious stones belonging to the appellants were kept in the locker with the Applicant Bank. The order of leave to defend was challenged by the Bank in the Rajasthan High court which apparently allowed their Revision Petition partly on 23. 3. 89 and directed the precious stones to be sold in auction before December 1989. They were valued at Rs. 60 lacs and above. The stones were put to auction from 4. 10. 91 to 8. 10. 91, but they could not be sold. The Additional District Judge before whom the matter was pending made the reference to the High Court on 8. 10. 92 and sought fresh directions. The High Court on 3. 8. 96 gave the directions for appointing the Valuer and the fresh auction. The Valuer valued the stones at Rs. 5,83,072. 13. The report to that effect was submitted on 1. 10. 96. The appellants on 3. 10. 96 applied under Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur to whom the matter was transferred on coming into operation of the Recovery of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 alleging that the original goods have been substituted by the Bank and that the matter may be investigated into. The claim was resisted by the Bank on the ground that the allegations of alleged substitution and the prayer for investigation are malafide. The application was rejected under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery tribunal, Jaipur by the order dated 7. 10. 96. The Appellants again approached the High Court which has held that the Revision or any proceeding is not tenable on the ground that the remedy for making any grievance against the impugned order is by way of an Appeal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 which is hereinafter referred to as Act. This is how the appellants have come in appeal against the impugned order.

(3.) SHRI Bhargavaram, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants urged that both the keys of the locker were with the Bank and that the goods remained with the Bank throughout. The difference in valuation according to him clearly shows that the original goods valued at Rs. 60 lacs were substituted. He therefore urged that the matter requires full investigation and investigation even through C. B. I. He thereby challenged the legality of the order passed by Debts Recovery tribunal. As against it, Mr. Dhande, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Bank simply justified the order passed by the Debts recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.