2022 (7) TMI 1584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst the respondent- Bank. However, it was thought fit not to drag the respondent­Bank to the Court to avoid adverse publicity and mar their chances of receiving loans from other banks. It could thus be seen that the learned DRT has come to a finding of fact that it was the conscious decision of the appellants to pay off whatever amount was demanded by the respondent-Bank without joining the issue and they had accordingly paid the amount, may be much against their wishes. Admittedly, the said amount, which according to the appellants, was paid under undue influence in the year 1994 - It appears that after waiting for a period of five years, the appellants woke up from their deep slumber and issued a notice on 22nd September 1999. Conc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n O.A. No. 948 of 2000 against the present appellants raising certain claims. In the said proceedings, the appellants filed a counter­claim claiming therein that certain amount deposited in the current account opened by them with the respondent­Bank, was illegally withheld by the respondent-Bank. The learned DRT vide order dated 31st October 2002 dismissed both, the claim of the bank as well as the counter­claim of the appellants. Being aggrieved thereby, both the respondent-Bank as well as the appellants had preferred appeals before the learned DRAT. Both the appeals were dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, two writ petitions were filed, one by the respondent­Bank and the other by the appellants. As far as the writ pet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for consideration. He submitted that the High Court, the DRT as well as the DRAT have erroneously held that in the present case Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable and not Article 22 of the Limitation Act. 4. Mr. S. N. Bhat relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Attar­UlNissa & Others [[1967] 1 SCR 792]. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank has submitted that no error could be noticed in the concurrent orders passed by the DRT, the DRAT and the High Court. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, the DRT, the DRAT as well as the High Court have rightly held that the counter­claim would be governed by Article 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... counter claim after the period of six years." 8. It could thus clearly be seen that in the factual position as apparent in the present matter, the specific case of the defendants­appellants was that the respondent­Bank had extracted the amount from them by exerting undue influence. It could further be seen that the Board of Directors of the Appellant had contemplated and considered the possibility of approaching the Court against the respondent- Bank. However, it was thought fit not to drag the respondent­Bank to the Court to avoid adverse publicity and mar their chances of receiving loans from other banks. It could thus be seen that the learned DRT has come to a finding of fact that it was the conscious decision of the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X