AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N.H. Zaidi, J
Heard parties' Counsel on appeal. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by DRT-I, Delhi whereby I.A. No. 623/2011 filed by the defendants/appellants in O.A. No. 26/2000 for sending certain documents to CFSL, Delhi for examination and report has been dismissed. Mr. Nabi points out that the respondent Corporation has filed an O.A. for the recovery of certain amounts against the defendants/appellants, which is pending disposal before the Tribunal below. He also points out that the respondent also took measures under the SARFAESI Act and sold the secured asset and recovered a substantial amount, qua which an S.A. has been by the appellants, which is also pending for disposal. He further points out that during the course of hearing of the O.A., the defendant had filed application I.A. No. 514/2009 for directing the applicant to disclose the date on which the account of the defendant company was classified as NPA, along with supporting documents and in reply to that application, the applicant/respondent while disclosing the date of NPA as 30.9.1998, had also filed a letter dated 13.3.1997, allegedly written by Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Director (Finance) of the defendant company and certain balance confirmation letters dated 29.5.1998, allegedly signed by Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, the then Manager (Accounts) thereof. Mr. Nabi submits that since the alleged signatures of Mr. Malhotra and Mr. Aggarwal thereon were denied and report of a handwriting expert was obtained wherein he had also opined that the signatures on those letters were not written by B.K. Malhotra and Abhishek Aggarwal and Mr. Aggarwal had also filed his affidavit specifically denying his signatures on the alleged balance confirmation letters, therefore, the defendant moved application I.A. No. 623/2011 for sending those letters for examination to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), but the learned Tribunal below, without properly appreciating the circumstances of the case, has dismissed that application by the impugned order. Mr. Nabi also submits that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajkumar v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Ors. II (2004) BC 485 (DB), was also cited by the defendant in support of its contentions but the learned Tribunal below, without referring or considering the observation of the Hon'ble Court in that case, dismissed that application.
Mr. Cherobin, on the other hand, submits that the applicant/respondent had not initially filed the letter dated 13.3.1997 of Mr. Malhotra or the balance confirmation letters dated 29.5.1998 of Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal along with Its O.A. and were filed only to meet the contentions of the defendant applicant in I.A. No. 514/2009 and its purpose stood served with the disposal of the said application. He also submits that an appeal was filed by the appellants against the said order of the Tribunal below, but the same was also dismissed by this Tribunal and though the defendant/appellant had assailed that order by way of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, but the petition was later withdrawn. Mr. Cherobin also submits that except the letter dated 13.3.1997 of Mr. Malhotra. the applicant/respondent is not relying upon the balance confirmation letters and the same may not be read in evidence for the purposes of adjudication of the O.A.
I have considered the submissions of the parties' Counsel and have also gone through the order impugned as well as the documents pointed out by the parties' Counsel. In my opinion, since the applicant/respondent relies upon the letter dated 13.3.1997 of Mr. Malhotra, the Director (Finance) of the defendant Company and it is alleged that this letter was not signed by him and the report of the handwriting expert also prima facie supports this allegation then, the Tribunal below should have considered for getting it examined by the CFSL. However, since the applicant/ respondent is not relying upon the balance confirmation letters dated 29.5.1998 for the purposes of the O.A., there was no necessity of the examination of those letters by the CFSL and the order impugned does not suffer with any infirmity qua the said letters. The order impugned, therefore requires interference so far as it relates to the letter dated 13.3.1997 of Mr. B.K. Malhotra. Consequently, this appeal partly succeeds and the order impugned is modified only to the extent of the aforesaid letter dated 13.3.1997 with no order as to cost The letter dated 13.3.1997 of Mr. B.K. Malhotra be sent to the CFSL, Delhi for examination/comparison of the signature of Mr. B.K. Malhotra, the then Director (Finance) of the defendant company, with his admitted/specimen signatures at the expense of the defendants/appellants. The report be called within six weeks Though Mr. Nabi points out that Mr. Malhotra is no more a Director of the defendant company, but since he admits that the appellants are aware of his present address which shall be provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal below, may direct Mr. Malhotra to appear for giving his specimen signatures.
With the above direction, the appeal stands disposed of.
As the concerned O.A. is pending since 2000 and it is pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 5.1.2009, as well as this Tribunal have directed for its expeditious disposal, it is expected that the Tribunal below shall make endeavour to dispose of the said O.A. as early as possible.
Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and be also sent to the concerned DRT.