HDFC BANK vs KARAMJIT SINGH on 31 July 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH

MA 55 of 2019

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs.

Karamjit Singh & Ors.

31.07.2019 Item No.54

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

This Application has been filed by the Applicant for restoration of the OA and for issuance of fresh notices of publication. The cousnel for the Applicant has prayed that due to some inadvertant mistake of the clerk of the counsel, the Notice could not be sent for publication and on request the Tribunal again issued notice. In the meantime, the Defendants approached the Bank for OTS and also deposited some money, due to which the notices for publication could not be done. But the Defendants thereafter did not come forward to honour OTS.

The Counsel for the Applicant has stated that it was due to the above reasons that the notices could not be published and that there was no intention to disobey the orders of the Tribunal.

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

It has been found that this Miscellaneous Application has been filed along with an IA 55 of 2019 for condonation of delay of 62 days. I have perused record. It has been found that OA 220 of 2018 was filed for recovery of Rs.36 lakh approx for which notice was directed to be issued through registered post and dasti on 24.02.2018 to be returned by 29.05.2018 on which date service report was not filed. On the request of the Bank notice through publication was directed to be served on 28.08.2018 returned by 12.10.2018. On that date when the Applicant Bank did not file service report, again notice was issued at the request of the Applicant Bank vide detail order and the matter was adjourned to 26.02.2019.

But on 26.02.2018, Bank instead of filing service report, again requested for issuance of fresh notice through publication as they could not serve the defendants and detail order was passed which is reproduced as under: “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 16.02.2018 i.e. more than 12 months ago and thereafter applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through Registered as well as Dasti vide order dated 24.02.2018 more than 10 months 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 28.08.2018 to be returned by 12.10.2018, but the applicant bank has failed to file service report. Again vide detailed order dated 12.10.2018 notices through substitute mode were issued at the request of the bank but the applicant bank 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 applicant bank again prays for issuance of fresh notices on the pretext that he could not file service report because the bank could not able to got it published, even after laps of 180 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 the bank 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 180 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 180 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 six 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.” Meaning thereby that it was not the case that the Applicant was not having knowledge about the mandate of this court rather the concerned officer of the Bank has admitted that the defendants have approached them for OTS but despite that they did not chose to get the notice served upon the defendants and chose to get their own way to go ahead with OTS ignoring the orders of the Tribunal. Now the Applicant has verbally stated that the defendants paid some amount after giving undertaking of settlement whereas neither settlement has been placed on record nor the concerned officer made efforts to get the defendants served which shows collaboration at the lower level with defaulters. Since the Applicant Bank itself has admitted that they had the knowledge of the notice which was issued twice and the defendants to have visited but still ignored and further delayed to file the application.

Hence finding no ground and being devoid of merit, the MA is dismissed. File be consigned to record.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 31.07.2019/cms