2003 (6) TMI 468 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's signature on the guarantee deed.
2. Denial of fair opportunity to the appellant by the Tribunal.
3. Misinterpretation of procedural timelines and facts by the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal.
4. Application of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the appellant's signature on the guarantee deed:
The appellant contested the claim of the bank, asserting that he had not signed the alleged guarantee papers and was not a guarantor for the loan given by the bank to respondent no.4. He filed applications requesting the Tribunal to delete his name from the O.A. and to send the alleged signature on the bank guarantee papers to a handwriting expert. The Tribunal dismissed these applications, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The appellant argued that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider his categorical denial of the signature in his written statement. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submission, noting that the appellant had consistently denied the signature and was entitled to prove his claim through a handwriting expert.

2. Denial of fair opportunity to the appellant by the Tribunal:
The High Court observed that the Tribunal violated the basic principles of natural justice by denying the appellant a fair opportunity to prove that he had not signed the guarantee. The Tribunal's refusal to appoint a handwriting expert and its decision to proceed without considering the appellant's plea were deemed erroneous. The High Court emphasized that even though the Tribunal is not bound by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, it must still adhere to the underlying principles of natural justice, which include providing a fair and reasonable opportunity to the parties.

3. Misinterpretation of procedural timelines and facts by the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal:
The High Court noted that the learned Single Judge and the Tribunals below were misled by incorrect facts, particularly regarding the timeline of the appellant's receipt of summons and the filing of his applications. The High Court clarified that the appellant was served with the summons in February 2002, not in the year 2000, as incorrectly assumed by the lower courts. This misinterpretation led to an erroneous conclusion that the appellant was trying to delay the proceedings. The High Court found that the appellant had acted promptly upon receiving the summons and had not attempted to prolong the matter.

4. Application of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness:
The High Court criticized the Tribunal for its presumptive approach favoring the bank and for dismissing the appellant's application as frivolous. The High Court emphasized that there is no presumption in law that bank documents and officers are always truthful, and the appellant's defense should not have been shut out without proper consideration. The High Court reiterated that the Tribunal must ensure procedural fairness and adhere to the principles of natural justice, which were violated in this case.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal, and the learned Single Judge. The case was remanded back to the Tribunal with directions to refer the alleged signature on the guarantee to a handwriting expert for comparison with the appellant's specimen signatures. The High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and emphasized that the bank must prove the appellant's signature, and the appellant is entitled to rely on the handwriting expert's opinion and other evidence to substantiate his defense.