Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1629 (JHR)

Samir Kumar Ghosh v. State Bank of India

2012-11-08

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
Judgment: The petitioner is aggrieved by a part of the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby, while disposing of the petitioner's application dated 16.01.2008 for deciding the issue of limitation, as preliminary issue has made some unnecessary remarks prejudicial to the petitioner. 2. By the impugned order the petitioner's prayer has been rejected observing that the defendant no.4 can agitate the said matter at the stage of final hearing of the case. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though according to the said order, the said issue is to be decided after final hearing, learned Tribunal has made a remark taking prima-facie view that the loan and security documents, particularly the letter of guarantee executed by defendant no.4 in his personal capacity is of continuing in nature till liquidation of the loan liabilities by the obligants and the defendants including defendant no.4 cannot be absolved from his liability by filing an interim application. 4. The petitioner has prayed for review of the said order but his said prayer was rejected by order dated 29.2.2012 with observation that the view expressed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order was a prima-facie view and not a final view and the defendant has opportunity to agitate the said point before the Tribunal in the main case being P.T. Case No.05/2004. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner's prayer for deciding the issue as a preliminary issue has been refused, such observation, even prima-facie, is prejudicial to the petitioner as the same may affect the order which may be passed after final hearing. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue is to be finally decided by the Tribunal and there cannot be two decisions – one prima-facie and another final decision. In that view also the impugned order making such observation is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 6. The respondents have opposed the petition. It has been submitted, inter-alia, that learned Tribunal has made only some passing remark. It has been amply clarified that the said view of the Tribunal was prima-facie subject to final adjudication. The said observation does not, in any way, cause prejudice to the petitioner. While disposing of the review application of the petitioner, it was further clarified by learned Tribunal in its order dated 29.2.2012. It has been amply clarified that the said view of the Tribunal was prima-facie subject to final adjudication. The said observation does not, in any way, cause prejudice to the petitioner. While disposing of the review application of the petitioner, it was further clarified by learned Tribunal in its order dated 29.2.2012. Now there is no ambiguity and there is no valid ground for any objection against the said observation of learned Tribunal. This writ petition has been unnecessarily filed in order to put the respondents to unnecessary loss and harassment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts of the case, materials on record and their respective submissions. 8. The petitioner (defendant no.4) had filed application dated 16.1.2008 praying for deciding the point of limitation as preliminary issue. By the impugned order dated 24.5.2011 learned Debt Recovery Tribunal has rejected his prayer with the remark that in the Tribunal's prima-facie view loan and security documents, particularly the letter of guarantee as executed by defendant no.4 in his personal capacity is of continuing in nature till liquidation of the loan liabilities by the obligants and the defendants in the matter, for which the said defendant no.4 cannot be absolved from his liability by filing an interim application. With the said remark, the petitioner's prayer has been refused with observation that the defendant no.4 may agitate the said point at the time of final hearing of P.T. Case No.05/2004. 9. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that when learned Tribunal has postponed consideration of the said preliminary issue till final hearing, there was no occasion for making such remark and expressing a prima-facie view on the issue at this stage. 10. Learned Tribunal, while disposing of the review application of the petitioner dated 29.2.2012, though, has made it clear that the same was not final even prima facie remark expressing mind on the issue before the final hearing is unwarranted and uncalled for. 11. 10. Learned Tribunal, while disposing of the review application of the petitioner dated 29.2.2012, though, has made it clear that the same was not final even prima facie remark expressing mind on the issue before the final hearing is unwarranted and uncalled for. 11. The said remark by which learned Tribunal has expressed his view that “the loan and security documents, particularly the letter of guarantee executed by defendant no.4 in his personal capacity is of continuing in nature till liquidation of the loan liabilities as the obligants and the defendants including defendant no.4 cannot be absolved by his liability by filing an interim application”, is accordingly expunged from paragraph-3 of the order dated 24.5.2011. 12. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.