THE REGISTRAR
1
IN TRE RIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 6″‘ day of March 200g. ‘A,j : : . : .
– 35:-‘one M ¢ % A
THE I-ION’BI..E MR. :ms’r:ts;£$%1%I; KUMAQQ
Writ Pgtitien No.S4ES.§:[g£;§39A'(G§1«Dli’f§
BETWEEN:
1 SRIABDUL SAMAD K§_~iAN..,.*
s/0 CHAND._KHANA……__’~..
AGED AB%<wT%s1=rEAR$«;
PROP: M1/s. ,i’2H_AMi?IN,_’ %
STEE1;CE2i!TRE;_
R/ATvILmGJE,4 ..
YERMAL
u.;i>uPz m.:.::%%< an msm
2 sMT_NA1MA.Y Si'-2AIK_
AGEDABOUT-41._YE«A'RS,
wig: ABD-UL 'SAMAD KHAN
_~ ":'«:.R,/VAT TENKA V.I.L_L§\GE, YE RMAL POST,
uwpx' TALUK AND axsmxcr
PETITIONERS
(BY-..$ri KUMAR ASSOCIATES, ADVS., )
« ,-mwo¢r'vnnnuw '-
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE _
E/’
¥
3
business needs and accordingiy, the ioan was sanctioned,
they vuant—-a«ction to be taken against the officials
aiting action against the officiais of the Bank
X_yvithin..vth;sv purview of the Bebt Recovery Tribunai.
V’ ‘Vff’i’her”e.f.ore, it is unnecessary to send the disputed
document for the opinion of the handwriting expert. It is
‘V V aiways open to the petitioners to initiate such appropriatehja
the loan was not distributed. Now by this insertion of
words “in closure of existing 500 ((5!)/RT’ it ”
WC term ioan a/c”, the offlciais
the loan sanctioned to meetV__th.e
towards the said loan and iiied theicivairnvipetition
before the Tribunal. _
3. If the contention ofjthe oetitioners is that ioan
was sanctioneg!,”h;u;t, it is a matter
which to the account extract.
For that’,”t’heV.ij’;.ndie;iiti:neAV’.:e§ctie’ift””s”Eopinion is not required.
It is theV”ca’$.e of.the’:s«petitiioners.that by such insertion, the
officials of’ithe’vBankA’~h”ave fabricated the document and
on the fabrication of the document does not fali