BRIJ KISHORE PRASAD Vs. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is indeed tragic to note that a small non-issue had unfortunately become an issue. Various contentions were raised by the petitioner, being a guarantor, is being persuaded by the State Bank of India (S.B.I.), challenging the action of the State Bank of India.

(2.) In my view, it is not necessary to consider any of them for the moment except as noticed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in paragraph-10 of the order passed in SARFAESI Appeal Case No.28 of 2007 being order dated 12.11.2009. It clearly mentions that petitioner had demanded several documents, which were documents apparently in the possession of the S.B.I., in stead of the DRT directing the S.B.I. to furnish those documents, the DRT completely on transit and wrote everything denying those documents to the petitioner. It left to the petitioner to make an application under R.T.I. and/or to go to the registry of the DRT. That can be done by a simple order passed by the DRT, directing the S.B.I. to produce those documents, which are part of another independent proceeding before the DRT.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank, I fail to appreciate why such a small non-issue was made an issue. Here, I would quote from the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi, V/s. Jugal Kishore and others, 1988 AIR(SC) 719as hereunder:-