BANK OF BARODA vs Sai Kraft Paper Products and Anr on 23 May 2019

MA 43 of 2019 in OA 1107 of 2018

Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Sai Kraft Paper Products & Anr.

23.05.2018 Item No.13 Present: Sh. Randeep Khatkar, Counsel for the Applicant.

This Appliction has been filed by the Applicant Bank for recalling order dt.29.04.2019 whereby the OA was dismissed for non compliance of order dt.24.01.2019.

The Counsel for the Applicant has prayed that due to family traded, i.e., unexpected death of a close family member and further due to underoing medical treatment of the teeth, the summons could not be collected. The counsel further prayed that since the money financed by the Bank is public money, MA be allowed and two week’s time be granted to serve upon the defendants.

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

It is not the case that the Applicant was not given time to serve the defendants. Earlier on 19.07.2018 when the Applicant failed to serve the defendants, again at the request of the Applicant, fresh summons were issued on 24.01.2019. When the Applicants again failed to serve the defendants a detailed order was passed on 29.04.2019 which is reproduced as under:

“The proxy counsel for the applicant bank seeks another opportunity to place on record service report through registered as well as dasti. 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 30.03.2018 i.e. more than 12 months back and thereafter applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through Registered as well as Dasti vide order dated 19.07.2018 more than 9 months back. But the applicant bank has failed to serve the defendants through „Dasti‟ and prays for issuance of fresh summons through registered as well as dasti. On the request of proxy counsel for the applicant bank again vide order dated 24.01.2019 directions were issued to the applicant bank to serve the defendants through registered as well as dasti but the applicant bank again has failed to file service report. 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, the proxy counsel for the applicant bank again seeks adjournment for filing service report, even after laps of 100 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. 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 100 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 seeking adjournment on the pretext that he could not file service report after lapse of 100 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 three 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.”

Despite the above detailed order no satisfctory explanation has been given by the Bank except sheding crocodile tears in the name of loss of public money, but why the recovery is being delayed and who is responsible for the delay remains unanswered by so called ‘protector of public money’. It is not the first case of this circle, rather in a number of cases, the delay has been reflected but ultimately considering the overall interest of the institution, MA is allowed. OA is restored.

A copy of this order be sent to Ms. Sammita Sachdev, Regional Head/Circle Head, Chandigarh of the Applicant Bank for information.

MA file be consigned to record.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 23.05.2019/cms