2005 (9) TMI 630

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated 16th August, 2004 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2428/2004 whereby the High Court while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents held that the DRT, Cuttack violated the principles of natural justice by not permitting the respondents to cross-examine the witness, whose evidence on affidavit was entertained. THE High Court rejected the contention that an appeal could have been preferr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sel submitted that this was not necessary in view of the observations contained in the order that if during the course of the hearing it was felt necessary to reconsider the matter, appropriate orders may be passed. The Debts Recovery Tribunal heard the matter finally on January 31, 2003 and the claim of the Bank was allowed with simple interest @ 13 per cent per annum. The respondent did not pref .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rongly rejected. WE have no hesitation in holding that when the DRT did not accede to the request of the respondent to cross-examine the deponent, it could have, in the appeal preferred by it, assailed the decree/final order on that ground and the appellate authority would have passed appropriate orders. The mere fact that the respondent had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the depon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X