- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 994 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS A TRUSTEE OF THE RELIANCE ARC 010 TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RELIANCE CENTER NORTH WING, 6TH FLOOR OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY SANTACRUZ, EAST MUMBAI - 400 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT - RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY - P PRABHU …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B.A. VARADARAJACHAR S/O. ANJANEYACHAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45 BANASWADI MAIN ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 043. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 2. M/S. SUJAN PRECISION COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.158, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN BOMMASANDRA INDL.AREA BENGALURU - 560 099 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI B.S. PADMANABHACHAR. 3. SRI B.S. PADMANABHACHAR S/O. SRINIVASACHAR B AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, KALARAVA PARISARA 19TH CROSS, KASHI MUTT ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 055. 4. SMT. BHARATHI PADMANABHACHAR W/O. B.S. PADMANABHACHAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, KALARAVA PARISARA 19TH CROSS, KASHI MUTT ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 055. 5. SRI M. THAMBI DORAI S/O. LATE MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.826, 2ND FLOOR, 8TH 'E' MAIN 2ND CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043. 6. SMT. SHANTHI VERI D/O. LATE P.MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 R/AT: C/O. DR. VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL LINGSUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 122. 7. SRI M. PRABHU DORAI S/O. LATE P. MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT: C/O. DR.VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL LINGSUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 122. 8. SRI ANNA DORAI S/O. LATE P. MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT: C/O. DR. VISHVESHWARAIAH ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL LINGSUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 122. 9. MRS. DIVYA HARISH W/O. E.HARISH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.45, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 043. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/04/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.13495/2024 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application-I.A.No.2/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7805/2025 [GM-DRT] clubbed with W.P.No.13495/2024 [GM-DRT] insofar as it relates to W.P.No.13495/2024. Respondent No.1 had filed the said petition impugning an order dated 09.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.2147/2023 and I.A.No.2166/2023 in O.A.No.173/2015. These applications were filed by respondent No.1, praying that he be permitted to lead evidence in support of his case as well as permission to cross examine AW1. The said witness had tendered an affidavit in support of the appellant's case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal [DRT]. The learned DRT had dismissed the said application for the following reasons: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 "The question now falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner/9th defendant has made out any good reason to hold that the proof affidavit filed by AW1 would not be sufficient and whether there is bona fide need for oral examination of AW1. This Tribunal after going through the affidavit of AW1 and the written statement of the petitioner/9th defendant, does not feel necessary that the applicant need to produce a witness for cross-examination by the petitioner/9th defendant in order to prove the contention of forgery and concoction raised by him. His remedy lies elsewhere. Hence this Tribunal is of the view that the IA 2166/2023 is liable to be dismissed." 3. The learned Single Judge did not accept the said reasoning and had accordingly directed that the applications be allowed. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the controversy involved warranted that the applications for adducing evidence and cross examination of the witness to be allowed. The learned Single Judge had noted that in the present case, there was a charge sheet filed by CCB against the officials of the Bank in regard to a complaint of fraud and forgery. Additionally, a report of the handwriting expert was also furnished. The said report was to the effect that the documents on the basis of which the case of the appellant was founded, were forged. Respondent No.1 had denied executing the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 documents, which formed the basis of the case set up by the appellant. 4. Whilst the Court accepted that the proceeding before the DRT is summary in nature and it is not necessary in all cases to permit oral examination and cross examination of witnesses. However, the facts in the present case did warrant that the permission be granted. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was impermissible for the Court to allow cross examination of the witnesses who had tendered evidence by way of an affidavit before the DRT. At the previous hearing, he had sought time to produce authorities in support of his contention and the appeal was adjourned. He refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others: AIR 2002 SCC 1479 and drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 22 of the said decision, which reads as under: "At the outset, we find that the Rule 12 is not happily worded. The reason for establishing banking - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 Tribunals being to expedite the disposal of the claims by the banks, the Parliament thought it proper only to require the principles of natural justice to be the guiding factor for the Tribunals in deciding the applications, as is evident from S.22 of the Act. While the Tribunal has, no doubt, been given the power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath, but the Act does not contain any provision which makes it mandatory for the witness to be examined, if such a witness could be produced. R.12(6) has to be read harmoniously with the other provisions of the Act and the Rules. As we have already noticed, Rule 12(7) gives the Tribunal the power to act upon the affidavit of the applicant where the defendant denies his liability to pay the claims. Rule 12(6), if paraphrased, would read as follows: 1. The Tribunal may, at any time for sufficient reason, order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit ……… on such conditions as the Tribunal thinks reasonable; 2. The Tribunal may, at any time for sufficient reason, order …… that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Tribunal thinks reasonable." 6. On the strength of the aforesaid observations, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is impermissible to direct cross examination of the witnesses. The said contention is flawed. Whilst there is no cavil that it is not necessary that in every case the witness tendering affidavit must be subjected to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 cross examination. However, the facts obtaining in the present case clearly warrant that respondent No.1 be given the opportunity to cross examine the witness who had tendered the affidavit by way of evidence. This was in the backdrop of the respondent No.1’s defence that the documents produced were forged. Respondent No.1 had produced material to question the credibility of those documents. In the event the appellant wanted to rely on the witness for proving the said documents, it would be necessary to afford respondent No.1 an opportunity to cross examine the witness. 7. In Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd.: (1981) 3 SCC 333, the Supreme Court had observed as under: “63. We appreciate that it is generally unsatisfactory to record a finding involving grave consequences to a person on the basis of affidavits and documents without asking that person to submit to cross- examination. It is true that men may lie but documents will not and often, documents speak louder than words. But a total reliance on the written word, when probity and fairness of conduct are in issue, involves the risk that the person accused of wrongful conduct is denied an opportunity to controvert the inferences said to arise from the documents.” [Emphasis supplied] - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33535-DB WA No. 994 of 2025 The above observations are instructive and emphasise the requirement of affording opportunity of cross examination. 8. In the given facts of the present case, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28