IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.3061/2016 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
M.BALARAM MUDDUKURI S/O M.DHANANJAYA AGE: 33 YEARS R/O KRISHNA NAGAR CAMP YERRANGALI BELLARY – 583 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.G.S.KANNUR, ADV.) AND:
1. PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK (ERSTWHILE PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK) A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT 1976 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BELLARY AND A BRANCH OFFICE INTER ALIA AT SIDDAMMANAHALLI BRANCH BELLARY TALUK AND DISTRICT – 583 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER – I.M.RAVINDRANATH 2. GARPATI PRASAD S/O BRAHMAIAH AGE: MAJOR R/O KRISHNA NAGAR CAMP YERRANGALI, BELLARY – 583 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. U.R.NAYAK, ADV., FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 13.04.2016) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2015 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE ON I.A.5704/2015 IN O.A.93/2014 AT ANNEXURE – G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’ for short) on I.A.No.5704/2015 in O.A.No.93/2014.
2. The respondent No.1-Bank has filed the application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (‘RDDB Act’ for short) against the petitioner herein and the respondent No.2 seeking issue of Recovery Certificate for the amount claimed therein. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed the objection statement. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No.1 herein has examined the witness on behalf of the applicant Bank. The petitioner herein, at that stage has filed the application in I.A.No.5704/2015 seeking leave to cross-
examine the witness, who was examined as AW-1. The DRT, through the order impugned dated 31.12.2015 has rejected the application. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.
3. This Court, while directing notice to the respondents had granted interim stay of further proceedings before the DRT. In that light, the consideration at present would be as to whether the request of the petitioner seeking cross-examination of AW-1 is required to be granted by this Court or whether the order of the DRT rejecting such request would be justified.
4. A perusal of the reasons as assigned in the application filed by the petitioner seeking such cross-examination no doubt would only refer to the nature of the documents that had been executed during the grant of loan and in that regard, the discrepancies that was required to be pointed out. However, what is contended at this point is also that, the loan as advanced was on pledging the rice grown by the petitioner. Since, the witness has also referred to the stock which had been pledged being sold and the loan appropriated, the need for selling such pledged stock and the amount realized and the manner in which it is appropriated to the account of the petitioner not been spelt out in detail by AW-1. In that regard, since the petitioner seeks to cross-examine the witness on these aspects of the matter as well, leave has been sought to cross-examine the witness.
5. Insofar as the provision as referred to by the Tribunal as contained in Section 22 of the RDDB Act and the opportunity of cross-examining the witness before the DRT not being available as a matter of right in view of the provision as contained in Section 19 of the Act and also the decision as referred to by the Tribunal, there could be no quarrel on the position of law. In fact, this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.25757/2015 dated 07.09.2015 has in fact referred to the decisions in that regard and has also taken a view that in appropriate cases, the cross-examination could be permitted to elicit the necessary details for the ultimate decision. In that light, it was also held that denial of opportunity merely on the ground that it would cause some delay would not be justified.
6. Therefore, in that circumstance, if the contention as urged by the petitioner is kept in view, in any event, if cross-examination of AW-1 is permitted by this Court, the same would only enable the DRT to have all the facts before it, before arriving at a conclusion. However, in order to see that the proceedings before the DRT is concluded in an appropriate manner, it would still be open for the DRT to fix a time frame to conclude the cross-examination of AW-1 and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.
7. In that light, to enable the petitioner herein to cross-examine AW-1, the order impugned dated 31.12.2015 is set aside. The application in I.A.No.5704/2015 is allowed. The DRT is directed to recall AW-1 and permit the petitioner to cross-examine him. For the said purpose, the DRT may fix a time frame within which the petitioner shall complete the cross- examination. It is made clear that, if the opportunity as granted is not availed within the time frame to be fixed by the DRT, the indulgence granted by this Court would stand forfeited.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST