Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
State Bank Of India vs Doon Valley Rice Ltd. And Ors. on 28 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: IV(2004)BC71
ORDER
K.S. Kumaran, (J.) Chairperson
1. This is an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, if any. But Mr. S.L. Gupta states that the appellant got certified copy on 7.4.2003 and, therefore, this appeal filed on 21.5.2003, is in time. He, therefore, states that there is no delay, and accordingly the application may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as not pressed.
2. Copy be given to the Counsel for the applicant.
Unregistered Appeal
3. In view of the order passed in Miscellaneous Application 266/2003, the appeal is taken on record. The Registry to assign a suitable dumber.
4. Heard, Mr. S.L. Gupta, Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has approached this Tribunal with this appeal aggrieved by the Order dated 25.3.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh in application 6564/2002, the order passed on an application filed by the defendants for directing the applicant Bank to produce the certain documents. The appellant raised an objection that these documents are not relevant for the purpose of the O.A. inasmuch as they relate to certain proceedings, which were taken internally by the Bank in routine course of action. But, I find from the impugned Order that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has not directed the appellant to produce those documents. He has observed that the relevancy of these documents can be decided only after going through the evidence adduced by both the parties, and as such the question of production of the documents will be decided at the time of final arguments.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the application itself ought not to have been entertained, and this order that the question of production of these documents will be decided at the time of final arguments means that the Damocles' Sword is hanging on the head of the appellant. But, in my view, this order does not in any way affect the rights of the appellant to put forth the contention that the documents sought for arc irrelevant and, therefore, no direction to produce those documents can be given by the DRT. This objection, the appellant can put forward as and when the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT takes up the question, whether the appellant should be directed to produce these documents or not for consideration. The learned Presiding Officer has pointed out that this question will be decided at the time of final arguments. The learned Counsel for the appellants rightly points out that instead of deciding this question at the time of final arguments this should be decided before the final arguments in O.A. are heard, so that the appellant, if any adverse order is passed against it, will have sufficient opportunity to seek redressal.
6. I agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant in this respect. The learned Presiding Officer shall, before ever he starts hearing of the final arguments, consider this question, whether there could be a direction to produce these documents or not, and decide the same, so that the appellant will have an opportunity to seek redressal, if any adverse Order is passed. This appeal is disposed of with this direction.
7. A copy of this Order be furnished to the appellant, be served upon the respondents and also be forwarded to the concerned DRT.