Writ petition challenging refusal to summon witness for cross-examination in a debt recovery proceeding was dismissed by the Court, finding no merit in the interim application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP1202-17.2.sxw
PNP 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1202 OF 2011
Subhash Ramchandra Durge versus
Bank of Baroda
..Petitioner.
..Respondent.
.....
Mr. Amit Borkar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent.
......
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ.
17 February 2011.
P.C. :
The Petition has been mentioned for urgent orders and has been taken up for admission on the request of counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.
Both the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have come to the conclusion that there was no merit in the application filed by the Petitioner under Rule 22(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 for summoning the witness for cross examination. The bank had filed an affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief as far back as in 2004. The application for cross examination was taken out only in 2010. We are not inclined at this stage to interfere with the interlocutory order of the Tribunal. There is no merit in the Petition which is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
(Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
Subhash Ramchandra Durge
Bank of Baroda
D.Y. Chandrachud
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
