CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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.