NUNNA SRINIVAS SUMANTH Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNALII

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissing an application seeking cross-examination of the witnesses on the side of the bank, persons who claimed to be coparceners of the secured asset have come up with the above writ petition.

(2.) Heard Mr.B.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Maruthi Jadav, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent-bank.

(3.) Challenging the measures taken by the State Bank of India under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Securitization Act"), the petitioners herein filed an appeal in S.A.No.406 of 2015 (later renumbered as S.A.No.1246 of 2017). It appears that this appeal came up for hearing. At that time the petitioners claimed to have filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination along with certain documents. Thereafter, an application was also filed in I.A.I.R. No.898 of 2018 seeking permission to cross-examine the bank's witness-RW1.