Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2475
High Court of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA & V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
M/s. Continental Construction Ltd. & Another
Versus
State Bank of India & Others
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8075, 8138 of 2014 & 8077 of 2014
Decided on: 24-11-2014
For the Petitioners:V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Vinay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.L. Gupta & J.P. Gupta, Advocates.
Headnote:
Cross-Examination - Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Rule 12(7) and 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 - The court discussed the issue of whether the petitioners should be given liberty to cross-examine witnesses of the respondent bank in the original applications filed under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The court referred to Rule 12(7) and 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Another versus Delhi High Court Bar Association and Others, (2002) 4 SCC 275, to determine the admissibility of cross-examination of witnesses. The court held that the desire for cross-examination must be legitimate and justified, and no valid justification or cause was shown in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the petitioners' request for the liberty to cross-examine witnesses of the respondent bank in the original applications filed under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to show sufficient reasons or cause for summoning the bank’s witnesses for cross-examination. The court held that the desire for cross-examination must be legitimate and justified, and no valid justification or cause was shown in this case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be given liberty to cross-examine witnesses of the respondent bank in the original applications filed under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the desire for cross-examination must be legitimate and justified, and no valid justification or cause was shown in this case.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions, clarifying that the observations made by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) were for the purpose of disposal of the application for the right to cross-examination and should not be construed as conclusive and binding findings when the DRT finally examines and decides/adjudicates the case of the bank and the petitioners on merits.
Rao Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral):
1. Counsel for the petitioners have been informed that wife of one of us (Sanjiv Khanna, J.) is holder of some shares of the State Bank of India. Counsel for the petitioners state that they have no objection to the present Bench hearing these writ petitions.
2. The only issue and contention raised in the present writ petitions is whether the petitioners should be given liberty to cross-examine witnesses of the respondent bank in the original applications filed under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. These original applications are listed for final hearing before the DRT.
3. These writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT, for short) dated 10th October, 2014 disposing of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 380/2014 titled M.S. Basi versus State Bank of India and Others and Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 379/2014 and 378/2014 titled M/s Continental Construction Limited versus State Bank of India. These appeals arose from orders passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT, for short) on applications filed by the petitioners in OA Nos. 37/98, 38/98 and 39/98.
4. Respondent bank-State Bank of India had filed the aforementioned Original Applications way back in 1998, for recovery of Rs.89, 21,25,119, Rs.3,90,00,956 and Rs.77,35,911, with pendente lite and future interest from M/s Continental Construction Limited i.e. the principal borrower, and others. M.S. Basi, as a guarantor, has been impleaded in OA No. 38/98, but he is not a party/defendant in OA Nos. 37/98 and 39/98.
5. The respondent bank had filed evidence by way of affidavit in OA No. 39/1998 way back in 2002 and the petitioner M/s Continental Construction Ltd. i.e. the principal borrower had filed the evidence by way of affidavits in April, 2004. In OA No. 37/1998, evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the respondent bank in March, 2012 and by the petitioner, M/s Continental Construction Ltd., and others in May, 2012. In OA No. 38/98, evidence way of affidavit was filed by the respondent bank in September, 2011 and thereafter, evidence was filed by the principal borrower M/s Continental Construction Ltd. and the guarantor M.S. Basi in February, 2012 (See order dated 15th September, 2014, passed in W.P(C) No.6090/2014).
6. Apparently, when OA No. 38/98 was fixed for final arguments, M.S. Basi filed an application in March, 2012 for cross-examination of the deponents who have filed affidavits in support of the claim for recovery by the respondent bank.
7. Subsequently, an application was filed by M.S. Basi for consolidation of three OAs in 2014. Certain orders passed thereafter, became subject matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6090/2014 decided by this Bench on 15th September, 2014 holding that the three OAs could be taken up for hearing separately. This order also notices the earlier directions given by the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7758/2010 vide order dated 5.9.2011 that the parties should lead evidence before the DRT and OA No. 38/1998 would be disposed of within six months. The said direction was passed with consent. Thereafter the DRAT had passed order in an appeal arising from OA No. 37/1998 to a similar effect.
8. M/s Continental Construction Ltd., in year 2014, filed applications for cross-examination of the deponents who had filed evidence by way of affidavits in support of claim of the respondent bank, in OA Nos. 37/98 and 39/98.
9. The DRT by their order dated 22.9.2014, rejected these applications observing that there was no reason that necessitates or requires cross examination of bank’s witnesses and applications had been filed to delay the disposal of the OAs. Petitioners then approached the DRAT, but the prayer for cross-examination stands rejected by the impugned order dated 10.10.2014.
10. We have examined the applications, filed by M/s Continental Construction Ltd. in OAs 37/1998 and 39/1998 which are almost identical. The said
