STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Surjit Ice Factory on 8 May 2019

MA 33 of 2019 State Bank of India Vs.

Surjit Ice Factory

08.05.2019

Item No.15

Present: Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, Counsel for the Applicant.

This Application has been filed by the Applicant for restoration of the OA which was dismissed on 25.03.2019 for not serving the defendants.

The counsel for the Applicant tendering unqualified applogy argued that the case was filed by SARB Ludhiana which has been transferred to SARB Shimla. Due to transferring of large number of cases, the Bank in an oversight and inavertently could not serve the summons. It was not intentional but circumstancial and prayed that the OA be restored.

I have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the record and found that this is not the only case but there are many cases, particularly of this branch where they have been lethargic in dealing with the proceedings for which orders in detail have been passed. In this case also, the case was dismissed vide speaking orders for the delay on the part of the SARB which even the concerned officer has admitted. It was due to this delay and non compliance of orders that the OA was dismissed vide order dt.26.03.2018, which is reproduced hereunder: “Despite calling the matter number of times none appeared on behalf of applicant bank. Service report has not been filed by the applicant bank till today in compliance of order dated 30.11.2018.

It is pertinent to mention that these courts have been established by special enactment of the DRT Act to recover dues speedily from the defaulters in an effective and summarized manner. Contrary to that the bank itself seems not interested to speed up the recoveries. These types of cases are burden on the court and the precious time of the court is being wasted by taking adjournments on flimsy grounds. Despite sincere efforts of the concerned ministry and departments through guidelines and circulars to the banks for the appointment of General Manager and Deputy General Manager level officer to monitor the pending cases and to ensure attendance of Bank representative in DRTs and to check lapses on the part of banks and to brought them into the notice of senior officers so as to ensure that no delay occurs on the part of the bank, such lapses on the part of the bank is defeating the purpose of The Act besides increasing the pendency in DRTs. It is pertinent to add here that the Act under Section 19 (24) thrusts upon the Tribunal to make all efforts to complete the proceedings in two hearings and dispose of the case within 180 days from the receipt of the application whereas the applicant bank itself has taken such a long time yet is at initial stage of service which is contrary to the spirit of the Act. Today, neither Nodal officer/Law Officer nor any representative on behalf of applicant bank is present in the court to assist the court in respect of service of summons upon defendants, even after laps of almost 400 days, whereas the amended provisions of Act which was amended to further speed up proceedings and to cut short the delay thrust upon the Tribunal under Section 19 (5) (i) not to allow more than 45 days time (30 days + 15 days) to the defendants to file the written statement. Even the Hon’ble Honble High Court in the case title M/s Crest Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd Vs Punjab National Bank reaffirming the spirit of the provision so that the matter should not be lingered on, on behalf of defendants. Again I do not find any sufficient cause being shown for adjournment and non compliance of the order and required to be brought into the notice of higher officers but since a counsel Shri I.P. Singh, Advocate of the bank given a written representation on 02.07.2018, received on 06.07.2018 threatening not to send the copies of the orders to the higher authorities, compelled us not to brought it to the higher authorities. It has been found that despite the sincere efforts by this Tribunal to implement the rules in an effective manner, to curb delay practice but the mindset of these bank officers is still persist to the old culture of seeking adjournments as a norm rather than an exception, taking it as granted that if the Tribunal is of their personal institution and will run on their wishes and whims, killing the precious judicial time in such type of adjournments on flimsy and frivolous requests, apparent on its face that a sufficient time of more than 400 days were with the bank from last order. Whereas on the contrary the bank itself is still rolling at the initial stage of service and again praying for issuance of fresh notices through substitute mode on the pretext that he could not file service report after lapse of 400 days without explaining any reason. It appears that the applicant bank is not interested to pursue the matter seriously and seeking adjournment for the last 14 months just to facilitate the defaulters by prolonging the litigants itself and failed to file service report. It seems that applicant bank has lost interest in this case and just for the sake of keeping it pending asking for notices again & again, hence case is dismissed for non compliance of the order. Let copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and there after file be consigned to record.” However, keepin in view that the Applicant is Financial Institution and custodian of public money, MA is allowed with a warning to the concerned officr named Sh.Manish Arora, Branch Manager, SBI Branch Gagreta. OA is restored to its original number.

A copy of this order be sent to the AGM, SARB, First Floor, Local Head Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh and DGM, SBI, SAMB, Sector 17, Chandigarh for information.

MA file be consigned to record and a copy of this order be kept in the file of OA.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 08.05.2019/cms