2002 (2) TMI 1219 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Application for correcting the deposition of a witness rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) - Allegation of incorrect recording of witness statements - Failure to record exact statements - Duty of the Tribunal to address specific allegations - Dispute over witness statements - Revisional application challenging the rejection.

Analysis:
The revisional application in question was filed by the defendant against the Order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) rejecting an application for correcting the deposition of a witness, DW-1. The defendant disputed the claim of the Bank and alleged that the deposition did not accurately reflect the actual answers given by the witness during the proceedings. It was contended that the Tribunal did not record the exact statements uttered by the witness but summarized the deposition, leading to discrepancies in the recorded testimony.

The defendant specifically objected to a sentence in the deposition where the witness was recorded as saying, "I cannot say if the claim of the bank is correct or not." The defendant argued that this statement was not made by the witness and should be deleted from the deposition. The Tribunal, however, had rejected the application, citing that the next line of deposition would justify the earlier statements made.

Upon review, the High Court found that while the witness did express uncertainty about the exact amount due to the Bank, the disputed sentence regarding the correctness of the bank's claim was not in line with the witness's actual response. The Court agreed with the defendant's contention and ordered the deletion of the disputed sentence from the witness's deposition, emphasizing the importance of accurately reflecting the witness's statements.

The Court allowed the application, directing the removal of the contested sentence while maintaining the rest of the deposition intact. It also granted the Bank the opportunity to further cross-examine the witness in light of the deletion. The Court clarified that its decision pertained solely to the correction of the deposition and did not delve into the merits of the Bank's claim, leaving it to the Tribunal to determine the establishment of the claim based on the revised evidence.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the revisional application, emphasizing the significance of accurately recording witness statements and ensuring the integrity of the legal proceedings. The judgment focused on rectifying the deposition to reflect the witness's actual responses, underscoring the importance of maintaining the fidelity of evidence in judicial proceedings.