It is not in dispute that my predecessor demitted office on 8.10.2021. Even the first compliance date is during the period when the post was vacant. But the first respondent bank, for the reasons best known to it, though aware of the fact that post of Chairperson is not filled and is lying vacant and no incharge arrangements are made, still took these objections, which I can only say, nothing but a wrong exercise of right of defence. Further, applicant filed affidavit asserting reasons for non payment of 2nd instalment within due date. First respondent bank did not file any counter affidavit in answer to the affidavit averments. It is well known principle that affidavit is nothing but evidence, unless such evidence is rebutted, any length of objection by way of arguments is not permissible. Bank filed only verified counter. Normally, verified counter will be as an answer to pleadings and that cannot be treated as answer to the Affidavit of Opposite Party. In spite of that, advocate for Bank contends that ground of pandemic and disaster situation is wrong and incorrect. I am unable to understand, on what basis advocate for bank can say that fact sweared on Oath is wrong. When Party stated on Oath, which fact is not rebutted, submission of advocate for bank cannot be accepted.
