Anupam Kumar Didwania vs Punjab National Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

The appeal filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act against the order passed by the Recovery Officer stands dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. O.A. No. 1125/95 was allowed for recovery of Rs. 16,38,680/- on 20th June, 2003. The amount was ordered to be recovered from C.D. No. 1 M/s. Iron & Steel Corporation and C.D. No. 2 Mr. Anup Kumar Didwania. RC was accordingly issued against the CDs.

During the recovery proceedings, the appellant was found untraceable. The Recovery Officer made investigation and came to find that Mr. Anup Kumar Didwania was residing at A-199, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. To ascertain that the person residing at this address was the same who was the CD, the Recovery Officer appointed one Advocate as a Local Commissioner to enquire if Mr. Anup Kumar Didwania and Mr. Anupam Kumar Didwania were one and the same person or not. The Local Commissioner submitted his report to the effect that Mr. Anup/Mr. Anupam Kumar Didwania is the same person. This conclusion was reached by him after going back into the history of the case and circumstances which were found matching.

The appellant while appearing before the Recovery Officer objected to the report submitted by the Local Commissioner. The Recovery Officer then took pain to examine Mr. Om Parkash Aggarwal, Branch Manager of the responded Bank. As per the statement of the Branch Manager, Mr. Anupam Kumar Didwania, the present appellant, was the same person named Mr. Anup Kumar Didwania C.D.-2. As per the Manager, he was the same person who had signed the documents in the branch office on 9th March, 1983.

The Recovery Officer did not remain rest content with this investigation. He sent the signatures of the appellant to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT. As per the report received from the said laboratory, the questioned signatures and the specimen signatures were found to be of the same person. Other circumstances have also been noticed by the Tribunal below to come to this conclusion that the appellant is the same person who has taken this loan amount.

The Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant had wished to examine the person who had introduced him to the Bank but this prayer has not been considered. No such plea is noticed in the impugned order. Even otherwise, the 'RO' had made elaborate efforts to investigate and find that the appellant is the same person who is CD. This finding of fact has been examined by the Tribunal below. The finding by the forums below is based on relevant material. Present one is second appeal. Even then I have considered the pleas raised before me. It is noticed that the Tribunal below as well as the Recovery Officer have gone into very minute details to satisfy themselves about the factual position and have taken great pains to arrive at this conclusion. No case is made out for interference in this second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. In view of the dismissal of the appeal in limine, no orders are called for on the application seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit.