Metenere Global Ltd. Vs National Asset Reconstruction… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Metenere Global Ltd. Vs National Asset Reconstruction… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner (corporate guarantor) was entitled to cross-examine Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, who had filed affidavit evidence on behalf of IDBI Bank Limited, notwithstanding the refusal of that request by the DRT and the DRAT.

Court's answer

A request for cross-examination of witnesses before the Tribunal must be considered in accordance with law; it is not necessary that cross-examination of the witness be allowed in each and every case (per Para 8 of the Sonu Textiles judgment relied on by the Petitioner's counsel).

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal gave cogent reasons to decline the Petitioner's request to cross-examine the witness, having found that the Petitioner was trying to delay the proceedings.

Key takeaways

Both the DRT and the DRAT concurrently found that the Petitioner failed to make a case for being granted an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha.ratio¶16
This Court held there was no ground to interfere with the Impugned Judgement, and accordingly dismissed the present Appeal along with pending applications, if any.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Bench: Anil Kshetarpal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.; order dt. 03.09.2025) dismissed W.P.(C) 13561/2025 filed by Metenere Global Ltd, a corporate guarantor, invoking Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent orders of the DRT (dt. 23.06.2025) and DRAT (dt. 05.08.2025) declining its request to cross-examine Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, who had filed affidavit evidence on behalf of IDBI Bank Limited. The Court relied on Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi [(2013) 15 SCC 341] for the position that proceedings before the DRT are summary in nature; responding to counsel's reliance on Sonu Textiles, Mumbai v. Punjab National Bank, Mumbai [2008 (2) Maharashtra Law General 218], it observed (per Para 8 thereof) that a cross-examination request need only be considered in accordance with law and need not be granted in every case. The Court found the Tribunal had given cogent reasons (the Petitioner was trying to delay proceedings) and that both Tribunals had concurrently found no case made out for cross-examination; hence no ground to interfere and the appeal, with pending applications, was dismissed.

$~43

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 13561/2025, CM APPL. 55592/2025 (Dir.), CM APPL. 55593/2025 (Ex. from filing the certified copy of order dt. 05.08.2025) & CM APPL. 55594/2025 (Ex.)

METENERE GLOBAL LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Purti Gupta, Ms. Henna George, Ms. Sunidhi Sah & Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajive R Raj, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava & Mr. Rishi Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R % 03.09.2025

The Petitioner, while invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the concurrent orders passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal [“ DRT ”] dated 23.06.2025 as well as the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [“ DRAT ”] dated 05.08.2025. By way of these orders, the request of the Petitioner was declined to crossexamine one, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, who had filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of IDBI Bank Limited.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2025 at 12:27:22

The Petitioner, herein, is a corporate guarantor. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed in the year 2005. Till 2014, some amount was repaid. Thereafter, there was default in repayment.

It is evident that Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has deposed only on the basis of the record. He was not an officer who was present at the time of advancing the loan or had dealt with the disbursement of the credit facilities.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi And Ors. , [(2013) 15 SCC 341] that proceedings before the learned DRT are summary in nature. 5. The learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons to decline the Petitioner’s request to cross-examine the witness, as it has been found that the Petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sonu Textiles, Mumbai v. Punjab National Bank, Mumbai [ 2008 (2) Maharashtra Law General 218 ], submits that an opportunity should be granted to cross-examine the witness once a request is made. 7. It is evident from a perusal of Para 8 of the aforenoted judgment that a request for cross-examination of witnesses is required to be considered by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law, and it is not necessary that in each and every case the cross-examination of the witness should be allowed.

In the present case, the learned DRT as well as the learned DRAT have concurrently found that the Petitioner has failed to make a case for an opportunity to be granted to cross-examine Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that no

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2025 at 12:27:22

ground is made to interfere with the Impugned Judgement. 10. Accordingly, the present Appeal, alongwith pending application(s), if any, is dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 3, 2025/ v / va

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2025 at 12:27:22