TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order is required. Caveator shall be heard, as per law. Caveat is disposed of. W.P.(C) 5341/2014 & CM No. 10627/2014 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.04.2014, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ('DRAT' for short), in Miscellaneous Appeal No.314/2013, titled M/s G.D.Goenka Pvt. Ltd. vs. Standard Chartered Bank. 2. The respondent/bank has filed an Original Application for recovery of Rs. 15.2 Crores approx. on account of derivative transactions. The petitioner herein had filed counter-claim which is also pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT', for short). 3. The petitioner herein had filed an application, seeking discovery and production of documents, IA No.345/2010 in O.A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounts of the defendant/counter claimant by the applicant bank with respect to all the 4 alleged derivative transactions and forward contracts." 4. In the order dated 14.03.2011, in paragraph 8, it was directed that the respondent bank herein would produce the above-stated documents. Regarding other documents, DRT observed that their production was not relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the case. The aforesaid order does not record that the same was passed in exercise of power under Order XI, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( Code for short). The case was thereafter adjourned to 19.04.2011. Order dated 19.04.2011 has not been placed on record. 5. In compliance of the above stated directions, the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated, on cancellation of transaction No.1 and transaction No.4, were received by the petitioner and at that time no dispute of any nature whatsoever with regard to authority to cancel, the rate at which cancellation was done, etc. was raised. In so far as monthly statement and ledger accounts were concerned, no separate accounts were maintained for derivative and forward cover transactions, and as and when the transactions matured, the resultant profit/loss was credited or debited in the account nominated, which was maintained by the petitioner with the respondent bank. On the question of approval/consent/permission for increasing the amount of derivative transaction from Rs. 30 Crores to Rs. 86 Crores, the respondent bank, in the affidavit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irections issued under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code cannot and should not be made subject matter of an Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code. (See Chinnappan Vs. Ramachandran (AIR 1989 Mad 314) and judgments quoted therein and Gur Prasad Shyam Babu v. State Bank of India, (AIR 1994 All 151) 9. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application originally was filed by them under Order XI, Rule 12 and 14 of the Code but the order dated 14.03.2011 was passed only under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code. In view of the said statement, we need not examine the question of applicability of Order XI, Rules 12 and 21 of the Code. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however drawn our attention to a decision of a Single J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding information by refusing to answer the interrogatories or withholding document sought to be discovered. There should be obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the said party or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the Court (Babbar Sewing Machine Co vs. Trilok, A 1978 SC 1436; Shawney Brothers vs. Hark Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (2001) 3 Punj LR 61 (64) (Del) : 2001 (93) DLT 694). 13. Both DRT and DRAT have held in favour of the respondent bank on the said aspect. There is nothing to show and establish that the respondent bank had documents, but they are being withheld. Whether or not the claim of the respondent bank has merit or should be dismissed or whether the counter-claim of the petitioner has merit or should be ....