Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Banerjee further submitted that the prayer for review of the said order dated 20-2-95 was frivolous and motivated aimed only at delaying the disposal of the proceeding before the Tribunal, According to Mr. Banerjee, there was no ground worth the name which could justify a review of that order. It is submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the order dated 20-2-95 because the petitioner might not have filed any written statement in this proceeding before the Tribunal but it is not the case of the bank that the demand promissory note on which the present proceeding is based was also a forged one. The forgery related to the signature of the opposite party No. 2 appearing in the bill of exchange and not to the promissory note purported to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the bank. There was thus nothing wrong on the part of the ld. Tribunal in making the observations in its order dated 20-2-95 to the effect that nothing against the demand promissory note has been stated by the applicant respondent. It is also argued that nothing could prevent the petitioner from arguing his case in support of his application for review as also the application dated 15-2-95 for vacating the interim injunction on 8-5-95 and that the rejection of his prayer for stay as made in the second application of 14-9-94 by the Tribunal's order dated 2-5-95 would not stand in the way of his proceeding with the hearing of his other two applications for review and vacation of the interim order. Mr. Banerjee also submitted that initially on 8-5-95 the petitioner prayed for adjournment not on the ground of physical unfitness of his senior advocate but on the ground of his intention to move the High Court against the order dated 2-5-95. Mr. Banerjee submits that the fact that the ground of physical unfitness was anything but true would be borne out by the fact that it was disclosed only after the rejection of the petitioner's earlier application for adjournment on 8-5-95. Mr. Banerjee finally submitted that there is neither any abuse of the process of the Court nor miscarriage of justice occasioned by any of the three impugned orders of the Tribunal so as to justify any interference by invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.