ORDER
K.S. Kumaran, (J.) Chairperson
1. Heard Counsel.
Mr. Jayant Nath states that the certified copy of the impugned order has been made available now, and he may be permitted to file the same today itself. Let him file the certified copy of the impugned order into the Registry today itself. Ordered accordingly.
Misc. Appeal 93 of 2003 :
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Delhi declining the request/application made by the appellants herein to direct the respondent-Bank to furnish them certain documents referred to in the O.A. itself.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in view of Rule 9 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as the 1993 Rules), the respondent-Bank has to produce all the documents, not only relied upon, but also referred to in the O.A, He also points out that as per the averments in the O.A., the principal debtor had approached the Bank in 1994, and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 3 crores was disbursed on 8.7.1994, that the principal debtor had also executed and delivered an agreement hypothecating all assets, the stock, finance and receivables, lease rentals, etc. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant allegedly executed a deed of guarantee in 1996 only and, therefore, he cannot be made liable for the transaction which had taken place earlier. He points out that this is one of the contentions raised in answer to the O.A. He, therefore, contends that the documents referred to in O.A. have to be furnished to the appellant.
3. In view of the specific provision contained in Rule 9 of the 1993 Rules, the respondent-Bank was bound to furnish all the documents referred to in the O.A. Therefore, the request of the appellant could not have been rejected in entirety. However, I find that the appellant has not specifically mentioned, the document/documents, copy of which he has sought for by means of the application, on which the impugned order has been passed. The learned Counsel for the appellant now states that the appellant requires the copies of such documents executed on or around 8.7.1994. Therefore, I am of the view that this appeal can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to the appellant to approach the concerned DRT with a fresh application giving specific dates and details of the document/documents required by him. If and when such an application is filed, the learned Presiding Officer of the concerned DRT will consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, especially, Rule 9 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, and after giving opportunity to the other side to put forward its case.
4. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant to approach the concerned DRT with a fresh application, specifically giving the dates and details of the documents, the copies of which are required. If and when such an application is made, the learned Presiding Officer of the concerned DRT will consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations contained in this order, and after giving opportunity to the other side to put forward its case.
Copy of this order be furnished to the appellant and also be forwarded to the concerned DRT.