CORPORATION BANK vs JASBIR SINGH on 1 June 2019

MA No.46/19 In OA No.70/19 Corporation Bank Vs Jasbir Singh & Anr.

01.06.2019 Item No.4 Present: Shri Virender Sood, proxy counsel for Shri Rupinder Sngh Sandhu, counsel for the applicant bank This Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant bank for recalling/setting aside the order dated 29.04.2019, whereby the Original Application for the applicant bank has been dismissed and prayed for restoring the application at its original number. The counsel for the applicant bank has prayed for recalling/setting aside the order dated 29.04.2019 on the ground that the counsel for the applicant bank was not able to appear on 29.04.2019 due to the reason that he got stuck in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and when he reached before this Tribunal the case was already dismissed. After going through the application as well as affidavit of the concerned Branch Manager, I have perused the record and found that the case was not only dismissed due to non appearance of the bank on 29.04.2019 rather after filing the OA when notices were issued by this Tribunal on 07.02.2019 the applicant bank was not present to press its application and Tribunal has issued notice through Registered Post as well ‘Dasti’ to be returned by 26.04.2019 but the applicant bank neither filed service report nor anyone appear before this Tribunal either Nodal Officer or Law officer on 26.04.2019 and 29.04.2019 to inform the status of service upon defendants due to which OA was dismissed, with a detailed order which is reproduced below: Order dated 29.04.2019

……….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 07.02.2019. Perusal of record shows that this OA was filed on 30.10.2018 and thereafter vide order dated 07.02.2019 the applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through registered as well as dasti to be returned by 26.04.2019 but the applicant bank has failed to file service report on 26.04.2019 and matter was adjourned to 29.04.2019. Today, neither service report is on record nor anyone appeared on behalf of applicant bank. 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 neither Nodal officer/ Law officer are present in the court to assist the court nor service report is on record even after laps of 60 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 60 days were with the bank from last order. It appears that the applicant bank is not interested to pursue the matter seriously and seeking adjournment for the last two 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.

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.35.00 lakh 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 Shambu Kumar, has filed the affidavit 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 CMD of the bank for information that how the bank itself helps out the defaulters to prolong the litigation.

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