CWP No.15454 of 2010.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15454 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.08.2010 **** Munish Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure P26) passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, whereby, he has been directed to deposit 25% of the principal amount within a period of four weeks failing which the appeal shall be liable to be dismissed under Section 21 of the DRT Act. (2). Before directing so, the Appellate Tribunal observed as follows:- “The document relied upon by the appellant i.e. the above detailed letter dated 21.07.2000 does not make any sense. It is not explained who had written it, it pertains to which transaction CWP No.15454 of 2010.doc - 2 - and it does not discuss the liability of the appellant. It does not state that the firm had been dissolved and proprietorship had replaced it. This letter is vague and evasive and leads the court nowhere.” (3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned order. (4). No meaningful argument could be advanced to dislodge the tentative inference drawn by the Appellate Tribunal. (5). No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. (6). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 30.08.2010 vishal shonkar