AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A caveat has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 vide Dy. No.61/2026. The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by DRT-II, Delhi. Sh. Ujjwal Jain, Advocate has put up appearance on behalf respondent no.1/caveator. The caveat is accordingly discharged.
The respondent no.1 filed S.A. bearing no.224/2024 titled as M/s Metalore Overseas Private Limited & others V. L & T Finance Limited & others which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The applicants before DRT filed I.A. bearing no.3387/2025 under Section 22(2)(b) & (c) read with Section 19(25) of the RDB Act, Rule 18 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 and Order XI Rules 1 & 2 CPC for seeking leave to administer interrogatories to the appellant. DRT-II, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 04.06.2026 has allowed the said application. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.06.2026 reads as under:
The main contention of the Ld. Counsel of the applicant is that he has filed the application for seeking interrogatories from the respondent FI on issues which are exclusively within the knowledge of respondent FI and the record of the same lies with the respondent FI. The Ld. Counsel has attached the list of interrogatories. From perusal of the schedule of interrogatories it is clear that the applicant has sought answers on points regarding the declaration of the account as NPA and regarding the breakup of the dues and the adjustment of the amount paid by the applicant. On the other side the Ld. Counsel of the respondent FI has submitted that the application has been filed with intention to delay the proceedings of the SA. It is submitted that the applicant has got injunction in his favour and therefore, he is delaying the proceedings of the present SA and enjoying the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is submitted that at such belated stage when the pleadings have already been completed, the application cannot be allowed. In this regard I have perused the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that the main contention of the applicant in the SA was that the account of the applicant has been wrongly declared as NPA. This Tribunal while hearing on the interim prayer has held that there appears some substance in the contention of the applicant regarding the charges levelled by the respondent FI and certain charges such as foreclosure charges has been charged against the loan agreement. This Tribunal has held that prima facie it appears in favour of the applicant. For proper disposal of the questions raised by the applicant, the interrogatories sought by the applicant appears to be relevant. If these information are submitted by the respondent FI, it will be more convenient for the Tribunal to decide the issue in accordance with the evidence. Merely because the applicant has been moved with certain delay, the same cannot be dismissed.
In the light of the above, the IA No.3387/2025 is liable to be allowed.
ORDER
The IA No.3387/2025 is allowed. The respondent FI is directed to file the reply of interrogatories within a period of 15 days.
Ms Usha Singh, Advocate for the appellant stated that the present application is filed only to delay the proceedings of the S.A. and more particularly when all the interrogatories sought in the application bearing I.A. no.3387/2025 were already placed on record. It is further argued that the impugned order dated 04.6.2026 is liable to be set aside.
Sh. Ujjwal Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.1 argued that the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and the main plea which has been taken by the appellant is the delay of proceedings which is misconceived and unfounded. He also referred to para 6 of the impugned order dated 04.06.2026.
The perusal of the impugned order reflects that the respondent had taken the plea that the account of the respondent no.1 was declared NPA illegally and the interrogatories asked by the respondent no.1 related to the declaration of account NPA. DRT-II, Delhi has considered all the relevant issues while passing the impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity which warrants interference by this Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, DRT-II, Delhi is directed to make every possible endeavour for expeditious disposal of the S.A. bearing no.224/2024.