AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Respondent no.1 along with other banks filed O.A. bearing T.A. No.408/2022 which is stated to be pending before DRT-III, Delhi. The appellant was impleaded as defendant no.3 in the original application. The defendant no.3 filed an application bearing I.A. No.1082/2024 for seeking permission for cross-examination of certain witnesses as referred in para 8 of the order dated 11.11.2024.
DRT-III, Delhi vide impugned order dated 11.11.2024 has dismissed the application bearing I.A. No.1082/2024 by observing that the said I.A. is devoid of any merit and has been filed to delay the adjudication of Original Application. It was further observed that the principle of natural justice is not violated with regard to the appellant being the defendant no.3 in the Original Application.
Sh. Pallav Saxena, Advocate for the appellant stated that the main concern of the appellant is regarding the observations made by DRT-III, Delhi while passing the impugned order dated as detailed in para 15 of the said impugned order which reads as under:
15.Considering the fact submitted on behalf of both parties the Tribunal finds that the liability of Defendant No.3 has been clearly established through the corporate guarantee and mortgage agreements, which explicitly extend to the enhanced credit limits of Rs.201 crores, inclusive of interest and other charges. The Applicant's reliance on documentary evidence is adequate for adjudication, and no substantive ground has been shown to warrant the necessity of cross-examination. The contradictions alleged by Defendant No.3 are unsubstantiated, and the claims regarding limited liability are refuted by the clear terms of the guarantee and mortgage agreements. Cross-examination is not an absolute right under Section22(2) of the Act and must be justified by compelling reasons. In the present case, no such justification has been provided.
Sh. Pallav Saxena, Advocate further stated that DRT-III, Delhi be directed to adjudicate the merit of O.A. and pass the final verdict but without being influenced by observations as made in para 15 of the impugned order dated 11.11.2024. There is a merit in the argument advanced by Sh. Pallav Saxena, Advocate for the appellant. DRT-III, Delhi should not have made the observation as stated in para 15 of the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 before complete trial of O.A. bearing T.A. No.408/2022.
Accordingly, DRT-III, Delhi is directed to decide the O.A. bearing T.A. No.408/2022 in accordance with law but without being influenced by observation as made in para 15 of the order dated 11.11.2024.
The present appeal is accordingly, decided.