HDFC BANK vs Ajaib Singh & Ors. on 11 July 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH MA 52 of 2019 HDFC Bank Vs.

Ajaib Singh & Ors.

11.07.2019

Item No.5

Advocate: Sh.Saurabh Bhardwaj, Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

This Application has been filed by the Applicant Bank for recalling order dt.16.01.2019 vide which the OA was dismissed for non-compliance of the order.

The counsel for the Applicant has stated that on 30.07.2018 the Tribunal had directed to serve the defendants through publicationin the newspapers. However, due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the clerk of the counsel, the summons could not be sent to the Bank for publication. On request of counsel for the Bank, the court issued fresh summons on 26.09.2018 which was sent to the Bank. In the meantime, the defendants approached the Bank for settlement but did not deposit amount of settlement. In another case where publication was directed had been effected by the Bank and the Authorised Officer mistakenly considered it for the present case. Hence, the publication could not be done. The counsel for the Applicant stressed that there was no intention to disobey the order but due to misunderstanding the orders could not be complied with and prayed that the order dt.16.01.2019 be recalled and OA be restored.

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 this OA was filed on 11.12.2017 for which summons were directed to be served through registered post and dasti on 27.01.2018. When the defendants failed to appear, the defendants were directed to be served through publication vide order dt.30.07.2018 but on 26.09.2018 the bank instead of filing service report asked for issuance of fresh notices but the court directed the Bank to file service report and the matter was adjourned to 16.01.2019 on which date again the Bank asked for issuance of fresh notices through publication. Since the Bank had not complied with earlier orders, the OA was dismissed on 16.01.2019 vide detailed order which is reproduced as below: “The proxy counsel for the applicant bank prays for issuance of fresh notices through substitute mode stating that notice upon defendants could not be served through publication. 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 11.12.2017 i.e. more than One year and thereafter applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through Registered as well as Dasti vide order dated 27.01.2018 more than One year back. But the applicant bank has failed to serve the defendants through ordinary process. Thereafter, again on the request of counsel for the applicant bank notices through substitute mode were issued vide order dated 30.07.2018 to be returned by 26.09.2018, but the applicant bank has failed to file service report during this period of three months. Again vide detailed order dated 26.09.2018 the applicant bank was directed to file service report through substitute mode. 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 issuance of fresh notices on the pretext that he could not file service report after laps of 150 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. 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 90 days were with the bank from last order & almost One year from the filing of the OA. Whereas on the contrary the bank itself is still rolling at the initial stage of service and again praying for issuance of fresh notices through substitute mode on the pretext that he could not file service report after lapse of 150 days without explaining any reason. It appears that the applicant bank is not interested to pursue the matter and seeking adjournment for the last six months 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.”

Keeping in view the Applicant being a financial institution, the MA is allowed and OA is restored.

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

11.07.2019/cms