I.A. Nos. 169 to 171 of 2016 and Appeal No. 127 of 2016 in S.A. No. 144 of 2014. Case: Rekha Verma Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | I.A. Nos. 169 to 171 of 2016 and Appeal No. 127 of 2016 in S.A. No. 144 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ajay Khanna, Advocate |
| Judges | Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 18 |
| Judgement Date | March 03, 2016 |
| Court | Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
-
The application filed by the appellant to seek cross-examination of the witness of the Bank has been declined by the Tribunal below. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. This appeal against the order dated 9.10.2015 is filed with a delay of 100 days. The appellant has accordingly filed an application seeking condonation of this delay. As per the appellant, there is no delay in filing the appeal as the same is filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It is averred that the appellant had first filed Writ Petition No. 10237/2015 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the impugned order dated 9.10.2015. This writ petition was disposed of on 2.11.2015 with the direction to the respondent to supply statement of account on or before 4.11.2015, giving liberty to the appellant seek appropriate remedy if she still felt aggrieved. Appellant would contend that in view of the order passed in the writ petition, the appeal filed is within the limitation, as the Bank had supplied the statement of account only on 21.1.2016 whereafter this appeal was filed on 22.2.2016. The appellant has accordingly pleaded that delay, if any, in filing the present appeal be condoned.
-
I have perused the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition noted above. Before the High Court, the respondent Bank had raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not availed the remedy of appeal available to her against the impugned order. The plea by the Counsel for the appellant before the High Court was that the Bank had failed to place documents on record and thus in the absence of documents, opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the Bank would be necessary to establish appellant's case in the S.A. The submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant were disputed by the Counsel appearing for the Bank before the High Court. In this background, the High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Bank to supply complete statement of account on or before 4.11.2015. The Court further observed that if the petitioner (appellant) felt aggrieved, she would seek appropriate remedy as available in accordance with law. Both the parties had agreed to seek adjournment for 4.11.2015 and had directed the DRT to fix a date in the first week of December to enable the...
To continue reading
Request your trial