High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Dutta Cold Drinks Co. & Others v. Chairperson Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 69112 of 2005  RD-AH 5426 (9 November 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69112 of 2005
M/s Dutta Cold Drinks Company & others
Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Allahabad & others
Hon�??ble Vineet Saran, J
The petitioners had taken a loan from the respondent-State Bank of India. They, however, committed default in repaying the loan and thus the Bank filed a Civil Suit No. 191 of 1994 before the Civil Judge, Allahabad. After the creation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and was registered as Transfer Application No. 122 of 2000. The Tribunal framed five issues and the first one was �??whether the claim of the applicant-Bank is barred by time�??. By its order dated 18.2.2003 although all the other four issues were decided in favour of the Bank but since the first issue was decided against the Bank holding that the claim of the Bank was barred by limitation, the application of the applicant-Bank was dismissed with costs. The Bank filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad which has been allowed by order dated 8.8.2005 and the matter has been remanded back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal for deciding the issue with regard to limitation afresh in the light of the observations made in the order of the appellate court. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8.8.2005 the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
I have heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri Vipin Sinha, learned counsel assisted by Sri Rakesh Mishra, Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent No. 3-State Bank of India and have perused the record.
The appellate tribunal has considered various aspects of the case which were not taken into account by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while deciding the first issue regarding limitation. It has also been observed that the matter was heard by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the judgment was passed on a much later date and thus various aspects regarding the question of limitation had not been considered in the proper perspective. The two revival letters which are said to have been filed by the Bank and were duly exhibited, were not found on record and without making any enquiry, the Debts Recovery Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue holding that the said letters were not on record. The Debts Recovery Tribunal had also not considered another aspect of the case that in their written statement, the petitioners had offered to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs in addition to what had already been paid by them and thus the appellate tribunal has rightly observed that since the same may amount to admission of the liability by the petitioners, the same ought to have been considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while deciding the question of limitation. Besides that, the claim of the Bank that deposits had been made by the petitioners in their account on 7.10.1992 may also have bearing on the question of limitation which has not been considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. After observing these shortcomings in the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has, in my view, rightly set aside the findings of the Tribunal on the question of limitation and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The appellate order is thus perfectly legal and justified, and I do not find any cogent reason for interfering with the same.
This writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.