ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE vs TARA SINGH on 10 May 2019

MA No.31/19 OBC Vs Tara Singh & Ors.

10.05.2019 Item No.47

Order on MA.

This Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant bank under Section 19 (25) of SARFAESI Act read with Section 151 CPC for recalling and setting aside the order dated 29.04.2019 passed by this Tribunal vide which the OA was dismissed for non compliance of the order dated 16.02.2019 and with a prayer that OA be restored to its original number and be heard and decided on merits. Before the prayer of the applicant bank could be considered, I have perused the record and it has been found that on 06.05.2019 the matter was taken up and applicant bank was directed to place on record service report so that matter can be considered but instead of filing appropriate service report which the applicant bank failed to file since 15.04.2019 after taking number of opportunities has filed one affidavit of Shri Sukhwinder Kumar, OBC, dated 07.05.2019 stating that the defendants refused to accept the dasti summons, therefore the bank has served the dasti summons by affixing the copy of summons on the front gate of the house of the defendants on 08.04.2019 and further on the instruction of concerned officer of the bank informed that postal receipt has been misplaced and photocopy is also not available. We are surprised at the conduct of the concerned Manager who has filed this affidavit of affixation only, that too on 07.05.2019. If the service through affixation was affected by 08.04.2019 as stated in the affidavit then the same could have filed on the subsequent dates when the matter was fixed on 15.04.2019, 24.04.2019, 26.04.2019 and on 29.04.2019 which they failed. Rather, the photograph does not depicts on which date it was taken, meaning thereby the concerned officer now trying to cover up the lacuna had prepared the document.

On the one hand the legislation has made every efforts to speed up the process of proceedings to be completed within two hearings and to dispose of the OA finally within one hundred & eighty days, whereas on the contrary the bank itself is asking for fresh notices after lapse of 3 months, without explaining, why such delay occurred in issuing the notices. It seems that the higher official of the bank are not being apprised or made aware of such delay in these high stake cases by the negligent officers and therefore being enlightened by the duly quoted but not reported guide line of Hon’ble Apex Court:

…..The govt. departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for govt. departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

……In our view it is the right time to inform all the govt. bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. …. All this shows sheer and utter negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the case and such a conduct of the appellant is highly reprehensible.

CJI-Justice A. K. Sikri & P.K. Jain, JJ

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 of almost three months and yet is at initial stage of service which is contrary to the spirit of the Act. As we have observed above that the higher official of the bank are not being apprised or made aware of such delay in these high stake cases particularly in this case where almost Rs.1.03 Crore are to be recovered, Ministry of Finance vide letter dated 2nd January, 2013 to the Registrars of all DRTs/DRATs regarding disposal of the case has also shown its concern to take up the matter regarding delay & pendency of the cases with higher official and to the ministry itself and in order to address the bottle necks in prompt disposal of cases has categorically informed as under: “…………….it emerged that a number of cases are held up for want of information/documents from the banks. It has, therefore, been decided that in all such cases where the information is not forthcoming from PSBs, the DRTs may take up the matter with appropriate authorities in the banks under information to this Department so that such cases are monitored by this Department…….” Now in this case, in the light of above discussions we do not find that any leniency should be shown but as the officer of the bank named Shri Sukhwinder Kumar, has filed the affidavit for filing status report for the service of summons, and the counsel for the applicant bank has assured that it should not be happened and it is public institution and recovery of the institution is at stake which could not be affected because of some irregularities & illegalities on the part of the concerned negligent officers. Hence, MA is allowed and order dated 29.04.2019 is hereby recalled and OA be registered at its Original Number as the counsel for the applicant bank has assured that it should not be happened again.

Copy of this order be placed in OA file. This file be tagged alongwith OA and copy of this order be sent to the concerned DGM/Circle head too.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh Rajinder 10.05.2019