9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune dated 26-6-2002 in O.A. No. 535-P/2001. The Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, was to hear the original application for arguments on 26-6-2002. On that date a request was made on behalf of the petitioner that their advocate Smt. Kale was under medical treatment and advised rest for one month. No doubt besides Smt. Kale the petitioners had filed joint vakalatnama of one Advocate Gujar and he had appeared before the Tribunal on that day. The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing of the case on that date and passed interim order directing issuance of recovery certificate for the amount of Rs. 95,75,078.55 in favour of the respondent Bank on the basis that the petitioners have admitted that cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was in breach of principles of natural justice. Inasmuch as the petitioner was not put to notice about the fact that such an order was to be passed by the Tribunal on that date, nor the petitioner was given proper or effective opportunity of being heard in respect of that relief. The Appellate Tribunal, however, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Judgment Today 2002 (3) SC 131, wherein the constitutional validity of the Act including the provision for 75 per cent of pre-deposit before entertaining the appeal under section 21 of the Act has been held to be intra vires , observed that the aim of this enactment was expeditious adjudication of the claims. To my mind that observation is inapposite for resolving the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtent of the admission, but the applicant within a period of one month from the date of such order failing which the Tribunal may issue a certificate in accordance with section 19 of the Act to the extent of amount of debt due admitted by the defendant." 6. Having regard to the abovesaid provisions, the Tribunal could have passed interim order provided that an application for that relief was moved by the respondent Bank. Further, before passing any such order the Tribunal ought to have given notice to the defendant as well as afforded a fair opportunity of being heard on that question. Besides, when the defendant upon notice makes admission of any amount out of the claim amount due to the plaintiff, in the first place the Tribunal would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal in this case, therefore, ought to have allowed the application preferred by the petitioners for waiver. 7. In the present case no doubt the Tribunal has relied on the balance sheet of the petitioner-company so as to proceed on the assumption that the petitioner has admitted the claim. Reliance has been placed by the counsel appearing for the respondent Bank on the decision in Pandam Tea Co. Ltd., In re AIR 1974 Cal. 170 as well as another decision in Uttam Singh Dugal Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India AIR 2000 SC 2740, to contend that if necessary declaration is made in the profit and loss accounts and the assets and liabilities side indicate the liability of the petitioner along with the statement of the Directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
