Case: Union Bank of India Vs Kunjilal Hariram and Ors.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

JudgesD.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
IssueCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Rule 2, Rule 6; Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 19; Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13
CitationI (2007) BC 106
Judgement DateJuly 17, 2006
CourtKolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals


D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer

  1. The utilitarian justification of a person to be examined by a judicial authority has been time and again emphasised by the celebrated authorities. The above examination of the person or persons which is distinct and separate from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of themselves has been found, since the time immemorial, in serving justice to the great extent. The personal examination of the person or persons has also been responsible for closing the door for delaying justice. The personal examination of the person or persons irrespective of their character has been defended, supported as the protective or the safeguard to the wastage of time. The utility of such personal examination has been emphasised by the law-makers with the intent of preventing the wastage of time from taking place. In addition to the above, the personal examination has always enabled the judicial authority to arrive at an agreed material finding against any person or in favour of any person suing another one. The utilitarian justification behind the personal examination can also be described precisely in the words it helps much the judicial authority to arrive at a conclusive finding on whether a person initiating the action against another one is really entitled to any legal remedy or relief in connection thereto.

  2. More recently, Justice Malimath has, in his recommendatory report, emphasised the adoption of the personal examination. Justice Malimath has, in his report, emphatically championised the personal examination of any person sued or suitor. In the words of Justice Malimath, the personal examination is one of the scientific tools for an intelligent judicial officer. The above material suggestion has also been incorporated in his report for the cherished purpose of incorporating the necessary amendments in the body of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908) in the form of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act No. XLVI of 1999). The above personal examination has, moreover, related itself to measuring:

    whether the defendant has denied or resisted the liability or has accepted the same?

    The above personal examination may be utilised as a means of recording the admission or refusal or resistance. As far as an admission before a judicial body is concerned, such personal examination has been of the grave significance. The above personal examination has been, from point of time, conducted of Shri Ravi Agarwal, the defendant No. 3 in connection with the present case on Tuesday, February 8, 2005.

  3. Before reproducing the text of the above examination, it has been felt pertinent to highlight the characteristic features tended to be attributed to the said defendant. The above characteristic features of the said defendant may be gathered of through the different materials on record which do form the part of the record maintained in connection with OA/49/2004 instituted and filed on Friday, October 1,2004 against the four defendants for the due recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,32,49,979.34. Besides being the authorised signatory of M/s. Kunjilal Hariram, a proprietorship firm (which is incidentally accepted by the said defendant on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 as the proprietorship firm of the defendant No. 2 who is none but Smt. Keshardevi Agarwal, the mother of the said defendant), the said defendant has, in unequivocal words and beyond any ambiguity, declared himself during the above examination as a guarantor in respect of the different credit facilities sanctioned by the Bank through its letter IEP.ADV. 1345.98 dated January, 21, 1999. In addition to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT