DHIMAPUR TOWN COMMITTEE Vs. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 herein is a civic body formed under the Naga Hills District (Constitution of Town Committee) Rules, 1954, having its office at Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioner No.2 is the Chairman / Administrator of the petitioner No. 1 The Respondent No.2 State Bank of India is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Local Head Office at Guwahati and One Regional Office at Dimapur.

(2.) The Respondent No.2 filed a Money Suit on 29.08.96 against the petitioners in the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland which was registered as Money Suit No.30 of 1996, praying for a decree for Rs. l,52,45;776.30p as principal amount due from the petitioners and interest outstanding as on 28.08.96' a decree for future interest at the existing commercial rate of interest from 29.08.96 till realization of the decretal amount and' a decree for possession, sale of foreclosure of the mortgaged properties detailed in paragraphs (3) and (5) of the plaint.

(3.) Notices of the suit were issued to the petitioners under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act of 1993). After service of notice the petitioners filed their written statement denying the averments made by the Respondent State Bank of India in the plaint. By order dated 28.04.2000 the Debt Recovery Tribunal directed both the parties to file their affidavit. The Respondent Bank filed its evidence-on-affidavit on 04.07.2002. The said affidavit was sworn by one Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee, who was serving as Chief Manager, I.C.R. Department of the respondent Bank. The petitioners filed an application seeking order of the Tribunal to allow the petitioners to cross-examine Shri A.K. Bhatacharjee, Chief Manager, I.C.R. Department on the ground that in the affidavit Shri Bhattacharjee has not specified the period during which he had worked as Manager, SIB division, Dimapur Bazar Branch. It is stated in the affidavit that the defendants executed documents in consideration of the loan in his presence and that he also witnessed these documents, but has not specified those documents. In the affidavit, reliance has been placed on a letter dated 25.05.2000 which was not relied upon in the plaint. It is stated in the affidavit that Shri S.K. Khulu, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur executed various documents on behalf of the Dimapur Town Committee, but has not produced any authority letter indicating his power to do so. It is stated in the affidavit that Shri K.T. Sukhalu, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who deposited the Title deed of the properties of the petitioner No. 1, as he has been authorised by Shri H.K. Khulu, but no document giving such authority nor any provision was mentioned in the affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that the defendants from time to time executed revival letters for extending the terms of loan and also to save limitation, but the respondent has failed to produce any letter or document authorizing the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to sign the alleged revival letters on behalf of the Dimapur Town Committees and, as such, the defendant i.e. the petitioners may be allowed to cross-examine the Chief Manager in this regard. Cross-examination of Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee was asked for in the aforesaid premises. The Tribunal has rejected the application seeking permission to cross-examination of Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee.