1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 621 OF 2010 Praful D. Mayekar ... Petitioner vs. Standard Chartered Bank ... Respondents. Mr. Simil Purohit i/b Y.K. Deshpande for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Oka i/b Mahesh Menon & Co. for the respondent No.1. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 06TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. : Heard. 2. This petition has been filed impugning the order dated 5th November, 2009, passed by the DRT-II below Exhibit-31 in Original Application No.76 of 2007, which was taken in appeal before the DRAT vide Misc. Appeal No.276 of 2009 with Stay Application No. 1003 of 2009, which also came to be rejected by judgment and order dated 10th March, 2010. The petitioner had preferred an appeal under 2 section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institution Act, 1993, before the DRT. It is a case of the petitioner that the respondent’s stand that the original defendant No.1 is the borrower and that the original defendant No.2 is the company, which according to the petitioner, is not correct and, therefore, the petitioner has filed his claim affidavit and list of original documents dated 24th August, 2009 to prove his case that the petitioner has not signed any documents in the capacity of a borrower or guarantor and that the alleged loan was applied for by the original defendant No.2 and the same was disbursed in the account of original defendant No.2. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondent-bank has raised a false case against the petitioner that the petitioner is a principal borrower and to establish this fact, the petitioner filed an application dated 24th August, 2009 for cross-examination of the Bank officer which came to be rejected by the DRT-II by its order dated 5th November, 2009 and the Appeal filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the DRAT. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the various documents which have been placed on record and submitted 3 that on going through the documents it is evident that the petitioner was neither a borrower or a guarantor and, therefore, the claim of the respondent-bank will have to be met by the petitioner by calling the officer of the Bank for cross-examination. 4. On the other hand, it is a contention of the respondent-bank that the impugned orders do not call for any interference and, as rightly observed by the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal, the issue will have to be decided on the basis of the documents relied upon by the respondent-bank in support of their claim, which are not in dispute. 5. We have gone through the documents on which reliance is placed by the petitioner by way of justification for summoning the officer of the respondent-bank for cross-examination. We concur with the view taken by the DRT-II and the Appellate Tribunal that the documents speak for themselves and for the purpose of the issue as to whether the petitioner is the borrower or guarantor, it is not necessary to call the officer of the Bank in the witness box for cross- examination. 4 6. Therefore, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error or illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the witness of the Bank for cross-examination. 7. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A.P. BHANGALE, J.)