Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 707 (GAU)

Bolin Chetia v. Punjab National Bank & Anr.

2016-08-01

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- Mr. S Chamaria and Mr. M Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.Mr.A Ganguli and Mr.ADutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.6.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed I.A.(Civil) No. 398/2016 of Respondents- Punjab National Bank & others. It is to be noted that I.A. (Civil) No. 398/2016 was filed in WP(C) No. 2718/2016. The respondents – Bank approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati vide O.A. No. 62/2012 for recovery of outstanding loan amount availed by one NEFS INIDA PVT. LTD. In the said transaction of loan, the appellant was guarantor. During the pendency of case, the respondents published sale notice of the appellant’s property. Challenging the sale notice, the appellant filed SA No. 37/2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.3.2016 quashed the action taken by the respondents. The Tribunal on another application filed by the appellant directed the respondents to hand over the original property documents to him. The respondents have filed appeal being No. 06/2016 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata against the order dated 11.3.2016 passed in SA No. 37/2013. But since there was no Presiding Officer and the Appellate Tribunal was non-functional, the respondents have filed WP(C) No. 2718/2016 before the High Court against the order dated 11.3.2016 and vide order dated 29.4.2016 the learned Single Judge even directed that original documents may not be returned to the appellant. And since the documents were already returned to the appellant, the respondents filed I.A. (Civil) No. 398/2016 for a direction against the appellant to return the original documents. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has allowed the application on the ground that under Regulation 25 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2015 till the prescribed period of limitation for filing appeal, the documents could not have been returned to the appellant. Regulation 25 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2015 reads as under:- “25. Return of document/record (1) Original document(s) filed by a party and admitted in evidence may, with the permission of the Presiding Officer, be returned to such party on filing an application in Form-11. (2) The document shall be returned to the authorized person after obtaining his signature on the order sheet as well as on its index. Return of document/record (1) Original document(s) filed by a party and admitted in evidence may, with the permission of the Presiding Officer, be returned to such party on filing an application in Form-11. (2) The document shall be returned to the authorized person after obtaining his signature on the order sheet as well as on its index. (3) No document shall be returned until the expiry of the period for preferring an appeal or making an application for review or until the appeal or application for review, if preferred/made, has been disposed of. The person applying for the return of the documents shall file a certified copy of the document to be substituted for the original.” The learned counsel for the appellant has fairly agreed that under Regulation 25 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation, 2015 the documents could not have been returned to the appellant till the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation of filing appeal which is 45 days. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The Tribunal apparently ordered for the return of documents in utter violation of Regulation 25. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.