CONTINENTALCONSTRUCTION LTD. Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, we may record that petitioner No.2, M.S. Bassi, is not a defendant in O.A. No. 37 and 39/1998. M.S. Bassi has been arrayed as petitioner No.2 as he is the Director of the petitioner No.1 company. Therefore, we will treat the present petition filed by petitioner No.1 only, as we are only concerned with proceedings in O.A. Nos. 37 and 39/1998

(2.) PURSUANT to the last order, copy of the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal -II, Delhi (DRT) has been placed before us. The said order does not record the presence of the counsel for the respondent -bank. It also records that matter has been adjourned from time to time and was posted for final hearing on 20.08.2014 and adjourned for 02.09.2014. On the said date, counsel for the parties were required to address arguments, but again, request for adjournment had been made as the counsel for the respondent bank and the petitioner i.e. principal borrower/guarantor were not present. The Tribunal has reserved the judgment to be pronounced on 18.09.2014, after noticing the legislative mandate under Section 19(5)(A) and Section 19(24) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

(3.) THE aforesaid reprieve has been recorded at the request of the counsel for the parties before us. While giving aforesaid direction, it is noticed that the counsel for the respondent -bank has stated that he had addressed arguments on 02.09.2014 after the order reserving judgment had been passed and at that time, counsel for the petitioner and the guarantor were not present.