PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK vs Nishan Singh & Ors. on 17 May 2019

MA 17 of 2019

Punjab Gramin Bank Vs. Nishan Singh & Ors.

17.05.2019 Item No.48

The Applicant has filed this application beyond limitation with IA 147 of 2019 for condonation of delay of 10 days.

The Applicant has admitted that this case was listed on 09.10.2017 for filing service report for which notice was served by the Bank to the defendants through registered post as well as dasti on 39.08.2017 and 04.10.2017 respectively as per Ann. A1. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 09.10.2017, 12.12.2017, 19.03.2017, 18.06.2018 and 29.09.2018 for filing of service report. When the Bank failed to comply with the filing of service report, the proxy counsle for the Bank asked for issuance of fresh notice but the OA was dismissed for non compliance vide order dt.22.07.2018 (Ann.A2).

After receiving the order on 19.11.2018, the Bank enquired about reasons of non compliance and inspecting the file it came to know that earlier MA filed with withdrawn for filing of ammended MA (Ann.A3 and A4). Since this ammended MA has been filed now, the counsel for the Applicant prayed that it should be allowed and OA be restored to its original no.

I have heard counsel for the Applicant and perused the record.

Firstly it is worth mentioning that while dismissing the OA on 25.10.2018, a detailed order was passed, which is reproduced hereunder:

“In the morning session Shri Rahul Garg, proxy counsel for the applicant bank appeared and prays to pass over the case stating that the main counsel is in the way and is filing service report today itself. After 3rd pass over, Shri Karan Dev, proxy counsel for the applicant bank appeared and prays that fresh notice be issued qua defendants as earlier notices could not be served upon defendants. Before the prayer of the proxy counsel for the applicant bank could be considered, I have perused the record which shows that this OA was filed on 30.05.2017 i.e. almost 1.1/2 year back and thereafter applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through Registered as well as Dasti vide order dated 22.07.2017 more than one years back. But the applicant bank has failed to serve the defendants and kept on taking adjournments on one pretext or the other on 09.10.2017, 12.12.2017, 19.03.2018, 18.06.2018, 29.09.2018 and matter was adjourned to 25.10.2018. 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, also the proxy counsel for the applicant bank instead of filing service report prays for issuance of fresh summons, 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 few banks advocates 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 450 days were with the bank from last order & almost 1.1/2 year from the filing of the OA and applicant bank could not file service report after lapse of 450 days without explaining any reason. It appears that the applicant bank is not interested to pursue the matter and 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.”

The Applicant has admitted that he has taken adjournments on numerous dates just to file service report but failed to file the same on record rather claimed that that he had filed the same in diary in original but neither original nor photocopy of the same has been placed on record. The counsel for the Applicant earlier had categorically stated that “after enquiring the matter by myself I have found that service report was filed by clerk and he failed to note down the date and number and neither could trace the original service report.” Ultimately on 25.10.2018, the proxy counsel prayed for issuance of fresh summons. We are surprised that rather than tracing out the original service report by the date if diary number was not available, the Applicant has filed another MA. It creates doubt in the mind that the Applicant never served the defendants even after taking numberous adjournments on the ground of filing service report and ultimately on 25.10.2018 prayed for issuance of fresh summons. 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 that the Act under Sec.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. However, keeping in view that the Applicant is a financial institution, the MA is allowed. OA is restored to its number.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 17.05.2019/cms