BANK OF INDIA vs Ranjit Singh and Ors on 31 May 2019

MA No. 11/19 Bank of India

Vs.

Ranjit Singh & Anr.

31.05.2019

Item No.42

Advocate: Ms. Asha Singh, Counsel for the applicant.

Applicant Bank has filed this Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order dated 30.01.2019 whereby this OA was dismissed for non-compliance of the order. The prayer of the Applicant Bank is that due to inadvertent mistake the reader of the Court could not mark his presence on 15.01.2019 and 22.01.2019. The factum could be proved that other OAs were also fixed on 15.01.2019 and 22.01.2019 before the same Court wherein the presence of the Counsel for the Applicant Bank was marked but could not be marked in this case. Moreover the Counsel for Applicant Bank noted the date as 29.01.2019 since the counsel was asked to come after lunch for checking of appropriate orders passed and the next date, but the Counsel for the Bank did not check the next date. Therefore, the absence of the Counsel for the Applicant Bank on 30.01.2019 was not intentional and prayed that if the said order is not recalled the Bank will face irreparable loss. The Counsel for the Applicant also undertook to submit the status Report of the summons issued by this Tribunal. Before the prayer of the Applicant could be considered I myself has perused the proceeding sheet and the record and found that the OA which was filed on 26.07.2018, the Bank was directed to serve the defendants and notices were issued on 05.10.2018 to be returned by 15.01.2019. Presuming the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant that he was very much present on 15.01.2019 and 22.01.2019 and noted the wrong date for 29.01.2019 still the questions remained unaswered for which the OA was dismissed with a detailed order passed on 30.01.2019 which is reproduced below:- “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 05.10.2018. Before proceeding further, I have perused the record which shows that this OA was filed on 26.07.2018 i.e. almost six months back and thereafter applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through Registered as well as Dasti vide order dated 05.10.2018 to be returned by 15.01.2019. But on 15.01.2019 neither service report has been filed nor Nodal Officer/law Officer or any representative on behalf applicant bank was present to assist the court and matter was adjourned to 22.01.2019 and also on 22.01.2019 none was present on behalf of applicant bank and matter was adjourned to 30.01.2019 for filing service report but the same is not on record. 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, none appeared on behalf of applicant bank. Neither Nodal Officer nor Law Officer is present in the court after 3rd pass over, 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 one of the banks 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 110 days were with the bank from last order & almost six months from the filing of the OA and applicant bank could not file service report after lapse of 110 days without explaining any reason. It appears that the applicant bank is not interested to pursue the matter as despite calling the matter number of times neither Nodal Officer nor Law Officer is present in the court to assist the court. 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.” The above order clearly depicts that it was not only a mere absence of the Bank but non-filing of the Service Report. Today also the Service Report of the main case has not been placed on record. The Applicant when moved this MA was directed to serve the respondent/ defendants for which the Service Report has been filed but still seeking time to file the Service Report of the previous OA on the grounds of which it was dismissed. It clearly reflects the negligent and careless attitute of the Bank itself. Since none of the Defendants are present despite being served through the wife of Defendant No. 1 and Sister of Defendant No. 2, I deem it fit that institution should not have to be punished because of the irresponsible and negligent act of the concerned officer, therefore, with a warning to Sh. GS Kaushal, Chief Manager of the Hoshiarpur Branch and a copy to the Circle Head as well as General Manager Recovery at the Head Office, this Miscellaneous Application is allowed.

MA allowed. OA is restored. (Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 31.05.2019/kanhayia