High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Global Time Shop vs M/S The Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 1 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Global Time Shop vs M/S The Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 1 September, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE EST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL , V. 

WRET PETITION NOS. 17787-88/2010 (G1\@:--'DI3{Ti"_}I..::    _

BETWEEN
1. M/S GLOBAL TIME SHOP
UUMACHICI BUILDING
KOPPKAR ROAD
HUBLI -- 580 020.
REP. BY ITS PARTNER  _
sm. VENKATESH B... RAIBAG1;*--_ ''

2. SR}. VENKATESH R;--£éA1I3AC§-.1";  A
s/0 RANGANATH s. RAi_I~3A'_GIf
AGED ABOIJT38 YEA*"'R"-5; ' "

A:5§Lii{¢Acé%:1G17}3U1LDi1v'G 
KOPPEKAR     ' -
HUBLI '-- 580Vv0:?;0._  "  

... PETITIONERS

 V.  EIBYV-'iéiu;.A1-RAV:sHA:\IK;sR ADV. FOR M/S LEX NEXUS ADVS.)

ENEI    

M/  BANK OF COMMERCE

7 ' NEW COTTON MARKET BRANCH

I " "   EILTEBLI #580 029.

... RESPONDENT

  (Ev SR1 :PRASHANT N HEGDE. ADV.)

!k=|==IHI¢=|=

 VVRIT PE'I'I'I'IONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTI'I'U'}f'ION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO  ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEBT



_ 2 _
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN IA.NO.241/10, IN
OA.NO.3T5/09 DT.21.5.2010, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE--
E, TO THE WP AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING 01$:
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'E' GROUP THIS__;"SAY,'_*--.T1'I*iE. 
COURT MADE rm: FOLLOWING: ~ *    _  '

ORDER   

Respondent has filed application.’
O.A.NO.375/2009 seeking reefwerydt ofc»et?t:air;’dt’aedbts. A
The petitioners madezan oI’1H°1’6V.1.2010
seeking permission to The Debt

Recovery Tribiirgal’ rejected application on

21.5.2Q10_. it the said order, petitioner is

before tl1is_tCourt».S it

have “hea;–,r-d’the learned counsel appearing for

as well as the respondent.

perused the order passed by the Debt

“R_eepoveryA:Tribunal rejecting the application. Apparently.

tI_ie».I5ebt Recovery Tribunal has rejected the application

solely on the ground that the Apex Court in the case of

V UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER vs. DELHI HIGH

_ 3 i

COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS reported in
AIR 2002 so 1479 has ruled that the question_:”:’of
granting permission to the defendant to _
the plaintiffs and his witness does .not_aris’c,-;’ if, S if

4. Apparently, the petitioner

examine the Bank witness O
matter, which wouid relate loan
itself. V K ‘O

5. I am of.-the proceeding,

right to ‘t’oross{tcxamO ‘f_§ii1e”‘is”‘-a Iniistfand cannot be taken
away un’1ess4.co1npe’11ing«res Scans are forthcoming.

Having regard. toffthese facts, I am of the View

V. “that”S’ta{ppl’ieati.on filéefldmbvy the petitioner to cross-exarnine

:the._wit11.es.s “of respondent cannot be denied.

A both the counsel submit that the matter

xargued. set down for judgment on 15.9.2010.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

, Submits that even before that date he would c

.. 4 _
examine the witness of the Bank and there wont be any
further arguments on merits. They would file
arguments and there won’t be any oral arguna_ents;«’ .

entire exercise shall be done on or before 9’3*’Séptemb’er, 0

2010.

9. Learned counsel appearing
submits that he woL1ii:ci~~..p’infodr”1″1Vf1’V* “for the
respondent–Bank to ivdpresent on a
specific date on datehe ~c.1foss–examine him

on or before€.9″‘ submit his written

arguInei3,_ts.._’i’hVed’r.espondent–:_Bank shall keep his witness

present ong:7″§ ‘.2010 on which date the

petitiojr1ertt.sha11V”cross examine the witness and file his

subinission on or before 93* September, 2010.

A-__10. .-~InL~:ieed for the inconvenience caused,

30″”‘~.__r’esppondent –Bank is entitled to cost. The cost is

A at Rs.7,500/– [Rupees Seven Thousand Five

»I:{.undred Only] payable by the petitioner to the

0’ respondent–Bank before they propose to cross–examine

the witness of the Bank. Parties shall not wait for :r

..5..

Certified copy of this order but shail act on .__the

directions issued.

Petitions stand disposed of accordingly, ‘ L.

SS*