9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition Nos. 207 and 1490 of 2005, filed by the present appellants arising out of the concurrent orders passed by the learned Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal1 (for short "DRT") in O.A. No. 948 of 2000 dated 31st October 2002 and the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai (for short "DRAT") in Appeal 2022 INSC 732 Nos. 152 of 2002 and 43 of 2004 dated 24th November 2004. 2. The respondent-Bank had filed an O.A. No. 948 of 2000 against the present appellants raising certain claims. In the said proceedings, the appellants filed a counterclaim claiming therein that certain amount deposited in the current account opened by them with the respondentBank, was illegally withheld by the respondent-Bank. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondentBank, i.e., from September, 1999. He has submitted that since the counterclaim was filed in the year 2000, i.e., within a period of three years from the date of issuance of notice, the same was within limitation. 3.2. Mr. Bhat submitted that in the present case, a clear question of law has arisen as to whether in the facts of the present case, Article 22 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable for consideration. He submitted that the High Court, the DRT as well as the DRAT have erroneously held that in the present case Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable and not Article 22 of the Limitation Act. 4. Mr. S. N. Bhat relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jammu and Kashm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by Defendant No. 1 Company to pay off whatever demanded by Applicant Bank without joining the issue and they had accordingly paid the amount maybe much against their wishes. Subsequently if the Defendants wanted to recover the said amount they ought to have taken out proper proceedings before proper forum within the statutory period of three years. This was admittedly not done. The said amount cannot be recovered by filing a counter claim after the period of six years." 8. It could thus clearly be seen that in the factual position as apparent in the present matter, the specific case of the defendantsappellants was that the respondentBank had extracted the amount from them by exerting undue influence. It could further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
