Misc. Appeal No. 203 of 2015. Case: Aruna Sanghi Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. and Ors.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Misc. Appeal No. 203 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pallav Saxena, Advocate |
| Judges | Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Banking |
| Citation | IV (2015) BC 110 (DRAT) |
| Judgement Date | July 16, 2015 |
| Court | Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
-
Application making prayer to seek cross-examination of Bank's witness has been declined by the Tribunal below. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Heard the Counsel at great length who, in the course of arguments, has not only referred to the contents of application, but has taken me to various other documents to press his pleas for cross-examination of the witness.
-
The Tribunal below while rejecting the prayer for cross-examination has found that the appellant has not taken any material ground in support of her plea to seek permission to cross-examine the witness. As per the Tribunal below, in the application it is alleged that the witness had made false statements and false allegations in the affidavit and, therefore, she would have to be subjected to the cross-examination. The Tribunal found this to be a bald allegation without specifying as to what false allegations were made in the affidavit. As per the Tribunal, the appellant also failed to demonstrate the disputed facts which she wanted to test by way of cross-examination.
-
The Counsel for the appellant has referred to various documents to show the cause and reason for which there is a need to cross-examine the witness and also to show that these facts had been duly demonstrated in the application itself which the appellant had filed before the Tribunal below. The Counsel would first refer to the averment in the application vide which this prayer was made. In Para 8 of the application, it is stated that the facts pleaded in the written statement are required to be established by means of cross-examination and also by confronting the witness with various documents including but not limited to the records/documents/correspondence of the applicant/plaintiff and also confronting him with various false allegations.
-
The Tribunal below is justified in observing that these are bald assertions. Averments general in nature are made without specifying in what respect the witness had deposed falsely for which the witnesses were required to be confronted with documents and which aspect is required to be elaborated and proved by means of cross-examination. Even in para 13 of this application (referred to by the appellant), it is stated that cross-examination of the witness is warranted and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case to prove and establish the falsity of the case set up...
To continue reading
Request your trial