Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 20 June 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai in Misc. Appeal No. 241 of 2012. By the impugned order, DRAT set aside the order dated 7 August 2012 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) which had refused to grant leave to the respondents (guarantors) to cross-examine MSFC's officer who had filed an affidavit in support of the original application for recovery of loan amounts and interest. MSFC contended that the impugned order violated Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, and that the respondents had not disputed the execution of guarantee documents and had sought cross-examination belatedly after MSFC's final arguments were concluded. MSFC also argued that if cross-examination was permitted, it would have to be allowed in several other similar cases. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there was a scam where MSFC advanced loans to non-existing persons or the same persons under different names, and DRAT had verified this from loan applications before granting leave. The High Court held that the right to cross-examine a deponent who has filed an affidavit in evidence is a valuable right, and Rule 12(6) does not bar cross-examination but only empowers the Tribunal to refuse to summon a witness for sufficient reason. The DRAT's order was reasoned and not perverse, and the High Court declined to interfere under its limited writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Cross-Examination - Right to Cross-Examine - Rule 12(6) of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 - The court held that when a party files an affidavit in evidence, the opposite party has a right to cross-examine the deponent. Rule 12(6) does not bar cross-examination but only provides that the Tribunal may, for sufficient reason, refuse to summon a witness. The DRAT's order granting leave to cross-examine was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227. (Paras 5-7) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Appellate Orders - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence or correcting mere errors of fact or law unless the order is perverse or without jurisdiction. The impugned order of DRAT was reasoned and did not suffer from any such infirmity. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) erred in granting leave to the respondents to cross-examine the petitioner's officer who filed an affidavit in support of the original application, and whether such order is in violation of Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the DRAT order granting leave to cross-examine.
Law Points
- Cross-examination is a matter of right when affidavit evidence is filed
- Rule 12(6) of DRT Procedure Rules does not bar cross-examination
- DRAT's order granting leave to cross-examine is not perverse
- High Court's interference under Articles 226 and 227 is limited.
