The grievance of the petitioners in these cases is mainly with regard to the rejection of the applications filed by the petitioners for summoning and examining the officers of the Bank, including the Manager, in the attempt of substantiating the facts and figures as to the fraud played on the part of the authorities of the Bank. According to the petitioners, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal as per Ext. P4 impugned orders is not correct and that the decisions sought to be relied on are not liable to be made applicable, in so far as the Bank Manager has already filed an affidavit, which can be tested only through the evidence to be let in; for which presence of the witness is necessary.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioners is throughly wrong and misconceived and there is a detailed discussion in the impugned order as to the applications preferred by the petitioners. The learned counsel also points out that the petitioners cannot summon any officer of the Bank as a matter of right. Observation of the Tribunal in this regard is discernible from paragraph 13 of the impugned order, which reads as follows :
“13. Going by the decisions relied by the petitioner also, this Tribunal is convinced that no right is vested in the petitioner to summon and examine the Branch Manager who is the Officer representing the 1st defendant bank itself and seeking to summon and examine the Accountant of the bank who is also an official of 1st defendant bank is satisfying and coming within the purview of the term 'defendant' as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala rendered in the case titled Kalliyara Estates Pvt. Ltd., Padinjaremuri Vs. State of Kerala & Others discussed supra. This Tribunal of course, is not powerless to summon and examine any witness under Section 22 (2) (a) of the RDDBFI Act 1993. But for the reasons discussed supra, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner has not made out any case necessitating the summoning and examining of the witness sought for and reiterates its view that the contentions raised by the petitioner can be very well proved by adducing her affidavit and documents as evidence. Further to that, since the additional documents called for by the petitioner has also been made available by the respondent bank in I.A. No. 1198 of 2014 concerning the petitioner's contention regarding NABARD, this petition does not merit consideration of this Tribunal at this belated stage when this Tribunal is expected to dispose of the main SA itself by 31.10.2014 as per the time bound direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. “
3. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Bank also brings it to the notice of this Court that there was a specific direction by this Court as per the judgment in OP (DRT), to have the matter finalized on or before 30.10.2014 as observed by the Tribunal in Ext. P4 order. Subsequently, at the instance of the petitioners, who approached this Court by filing I.A. No. 14291 of 2014 in O.P.(DRT) No. 4631 of 2013, time was extended till 30.11.2014.
4. The learned counsel further submits that the main grievance of the petitioners with reference to have exemption u/s 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act is not factually correct, in so far as an Engineering College is set up and is being run, in the property, which is not an agricultural property. It is also stated that a 'One Time Settlement Scheme' has been declared and if the petitioners earnestly desire to have the liability liquidated, it will be open for the petitioners to avail the benefit of OTS scheme to get substantial reduction in the liability. It is also stated that an 'Adalath' has already been scheduled to be held on 06.12.2014 and it is open for the petitioners to make use of the said opportunity as well, to liquidate the liability.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal in the impugned orders [Ext. P4 in all cases] is not liable to be intercepted. Interference is declined and the original petitions are dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners to make use of either the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' or the 'Adalath', to settle the liability or have the proceedings finalized in terms of the pleadings and evidence to be let in before the Tribunal within the time extended by this Court, as per the order mentioned hereinbefore.
kmd sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)