UCO BANK vs Darhiya and Anr on 11 July 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH MA 49 of 2019 UCO Bank

Vs.

Darhiya & Anr.

11.07.2019

Item No.46

Advocate: Sh.Nonish Kumar, Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

This Application has been filed by the Applicant Bank for recalling order dt.30.04.2019 vide which the OA was dismissed for non-compliance of the order of bringing LRs of Def. No.1 on record.

The counsel for the Applicant has stated that the Applicant Bank came to know while serving that the Def. No.1 had expired on 03.06.2019. Thereafter this Tribunal directed to bring on record the LRs of Def. No.1 but as two daughters of Def. No.1 were married and their address and details were not traceable, the Bank asked for some time on 29.01.2019 which was granted and the matter was adjourned to 30.04.2019. The Bank could not locate the address and name of the husband of daughters. The Applicant Bank again requested for granting of time but thir Tribunal dismissed the OA vide order dt.30.04.2019.

The Counsel for the Applicant has prayed that now the complete detail has been traced about the daugters of Def. No.1 who now are residents of Sirsa. The Counsel for the Applicant has prayed that since the delay in bringing the LRs on record was not intentional, the above order dt.30.04.2019 be recalled and MA be allowed. The Counsel for the Applicant has also prayed that the application for bringing on record LRs along with ammended memo of parties has also been filed.

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

Before the prayer of the Applicant could be considered, it has been found that after serving the defendants on 20.12.2018, the Bank did not disclose the status of the deceased Def. No.1. Since none for the applicant was present, the defendants were set ex parte. But while passing order dt.21.12.2018, it came to notice that an affidavit has been filed by the Bank stating that Def. No.1

had expired and the matter was adjourned to 28.01.2019 for bringing on record LRs of Def. No.1 on which date the Bank sought time and the matter was adjourned to 30.04.2019. On 30.04.2019 when the Bank again asked for time to bring on record the LRs of Def. No.1, the OA was dimissed seeing the conduct of the Applicant vide detailed order which is reproduced as below: “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 27.08.2018 almost 1.1/2 year back. Thereafter, applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants vide order dated 28.09.2018 to be returned by 20.12.2018. On 20.12.2018 on the basis of pleading the defendants were proceeded exparte and matter was adjourned to 21.12.2018 for orders. But, while dictating the order on 21.12.2018 it has been found that defendant no.1 has been reported to be expired as per the affidavit of service filed by the applicant bank and applicant bank was directed to do the needful for bringing on record LRs of deceased defendant no.1 and matter was adjourned to 28.01.2019. But the applicant bank has failed to file appropriate application for brining on record LRs of deceased defendant no.1 and on 28.01.2019 vide detailed order again applicant bank was given an opportunity for brining on record LRs of deceased defendant no.1 and matter was adjourned to 30.04.2019. Today, also the proxy counsel for the applicant bank again prays for adjournment for bringing on record LRs of deceased defendant no.1. 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 prays for adjournment for bringing on record LRs of deceased defendant no.1, even after laps of 90 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 90 days were with the bank from last order & almost 1.1/2 year from the filing of the OA. It appears that the applicant bank is not interested to pursue the matter seriously and seeking adjournment for the last 3 months just to facilitate the defaulters by prolonging the litigants itself and failed to file appropriate application for bringing on record LRs of deceased defendant no.1. It seems that applicant bank has lost interest in this case and just for the sake of keeping it pending asking for adjournment for brining on record LRs of deceased defendant no.1 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 thereafter file be consigned to record.”

Now, when the Applicant Bank has placed on record LRs at this belated stage, taking a lenient view that the Applicant is a financial institution and should not suffer because of irregularity on the part of some officer, the order dt.30.04.2019 is recalled. MA is allowed. OA is restored.

MA file be consigned to record. (Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh

11.07.2019/cms