T.A. No. 61 of 2002. Case: United Bank of India Vs Road Transport of India and Ors.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case Number:T.A. No. 61 of 2002
Party Name:United Bank of India Vs Road Transport of India and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: K. Chakraborty, Learned Adv. and For Respondents: None
Judges:D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
Issue:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order 8, Rule 6; Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 17; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Instutions Act, 1993 - Sections 19(22), 21(2) and 24 to 27
Citation:II (2004) BC 43
Judgement Date:July 17, 2002
Court:Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals


D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer

  1. Mr. K. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate along with Mr. S.J. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank.

  2. Neither of the seven defendants has appeared this day. But on Monday, June 10, 2002 one duly executed Vakalatnama from Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, the defendant No. 2 was filed before this Tribunal by Ms. Sucheta Majumder, the learned Advocate along with Shri Murari Mohan Das.

  3. After being accepted, it has formed a part of the record maintained in TA/61/2002.

  4. Besides, since T A 165 of 1995 which is the renumbering of Suit No. 585 of 1987 pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata upto March 1, 1995 being the date of transfer from the said Hon'ble Court to the learned transferring Tribunal, has been transferred by an order No. 29 made on Monday, February 25, 2002 by the said Tribunal to itself, it has been further renumbered; and thereafter the Registry of this Tribunal has caused the notice of transfer to be served through registered post with A/D upon all those defendants. For this reason, the applicant Bank was endowed with the responsibility as such. It shall become evident in the event of regard be had to the two specific orders, namely, order No. 13 made on March 27, 2002 as well as order No. 31 made on May 6, 2002.

  5. Thereafter, the said power was filed by the learned Advocate above named proving beyond doubt the service in this regard was completed.

  6. The instant matter has travelled a long way since 1987.

  7. But on March 26, 1987, the applicant Bank instituted one money suit against those defendants (1 to 7) by way presenting one plaint before the Hon'ble Justice Ajit Kr. Sengupta (as He then was) along with 12 exhibits annexed therewith. In the plaint as above, there were clearly prayed for a decree for Rs. 11,13,359.08 p. against the defendant No. 1 above named; and also for a decree for the same amount against the defendant Nos. 2 to 7 above named jointly and severally; an order for an interim interest at the rate of 17,5% per annum from June 26, 1987 and interest on attachment at the rate of 17.5% per annum for the reason of that there was not in existence at the time of institution of the above money suit, any constituted Tribunal as such because the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (Act No. LI of 1993) was not enacted that time.

  8. Thereafter, on March 1, 1995, the said pending suit was transferred to the transferring Tribunal by Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata in accordance with Section 31 of the said Act.

  9. Upon a careful perusal of the several orders made from time-to-time by the said Tribunal, it shall appear clearly that the applicant Bank has filed evidence on affidavit sworn by one Shri Hemanta Kr. Roy, the Branch Manager of the said Bank and the supplementary affidavit sworn by the said person on June 25, 1996.

  10. In support of the application for recovery of debts due from those defendants, the applicant Bank has been found in relying specifically upon the documents, each of which was marked the respective exhibits by the said Tribunal.

  11. Moreover, the said applicant Bank tendered Shri H.K. Roy, the deponent on March 22, 1996 and on May 22, 1996; every time the said PW was cross-examined before the said Tribunal. Added to that, the applicant Bank also filed one objection to the evidence on affidavit filed by the defendants before the said Tribunal.

  12. The said objection was affirmed by Shri H.K. Roy. Now, this Tribunal is to evaluate the role so far played by those defendants in TA 165 of 1995, later renumbered TA 61 of 2002. On December 18, 1995 there was jointly filed one written statement on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 in TA 165 of 1995; thereafter, on March 22, 1996 there was filed one evidence on affidavit affirmed by Mr. M.P. Gupta, the defendant No. 3 for himself and on behalf of the other defendants namely 3, 6 and 7. In the said affidavit, those defendants rely upon a letter bearing reference No. RTI/8586 dated February 25, 1996 being addressed to the petitioner; (ii) the letter bearing reference No. RTI/8586 dated March 7, 1986 and being addressed to the applicant Bank; (iii) letter bearing reference No. RTI/8586 dated May 21, 1986 being addressed to the applicant Bank as well.

  13. Thus, those three letters alongwith written statement were found to have been relied upon by those defendants; and hence, those were marked exhibits respectively A1, A2 and A3.

  14. On May 22, 1995, Shri M.P. Gupta, the defendant No. 2 confirming the above affidavit was brought before the said learned transferring Tribunal for the purpose of being cross-examined; and that day he was cross-examined by way of making such reply;

    This is the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. It is signed by him...

To continue reading