AXIS BANK vs Gurjant Singh on 8 August 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH

MA 53 of 2019

Axis Bank Ltd.

Vs.

Gurjant Singh & Ors.

08.08.2019

Item No.71

Advocate: Sh. Deepak Jain, Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

This Application has been filed by the Bank for restoration of the OA which was dismissed for non compliance vide order dt.30.04.2019.

The Counsel for the Applicnat has argued that since seven matters were listed for publication with different titles for filing of service of publication, out of which publication was done in 6 matters but inadvertanly this mattr escaped attention. As the concerned Manager was on leave dasti service could not be done and registered service was effected for which service report was duly accepted by the Tribunal. Thereafter notice through publication was issued. But the clerk of the counsel had an accident on 29.04.2019 and did not come on 30.04.2019. The notices was prepared by the registry but inadvertantly he missed to collect the summons and the orders could not be complied with and prayed that non compliance is not intentional but circumstancial and prayed that the MA be allowed and OA should be restored.

Before the prayer of the Applicant could be considered, it has been found that earlier OA was failed on 22.07.2012, i.e., almost two years back which was accompanied by the Application for condonation of delay of 295 days in refiling which itself shows the conduct of the Bank and the same was allowed vide order dt.05.11.2018 which is reproduced below: “05.11.2018 Item No.64

For order on IA No. 370 of 2018

This Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 295 days in refiling of the Original Application on the ground that the OA was withdrawan from registry on 26.07.2017 for removal of objections. During checking of refiling it transpired that certain documents and annexures were extremely illegible. The concerned clerk was asked to retrieve the original records from the Central Office of the Bank. Subsequently that clerk left the Bank. When the files were reconciled in January, it came to the notice that the original of these documents have not been received. By that time the new manager had joined and therefore, little time elapsed in calling the record from Central Office. The counsel for the

Applicant thus prayed that there was no intention delay, hence, the delay should be condoned and IA be allowed.

I have heard counsel for the applicant bank and perused the record. Before the prayer of the applicant bank could be considered, I have perused the record and it has been found that the bank had filed this OA for recovery of Rs.27,66,712/- on 22.07.2017 and was directed to remove the objections within 15 days, but the applicant took almost 10 months to remove the objections, which itself indicates how much serious is the applicant for recovery of its dues. It is really surprising that despite efforts of concerned counsel, the concerned branch officer and Law officer who are looking after the day to day proceedings have failed to get the objections removed. On the one hand the legislation has made every efforts to speed up the process of proceedings to be completed within two hearings and to dispose of the OA finally within one hundred & eighty days, whereas on the contrary the bank itself is asking for condoning the delay of 295 days, without explaining, why such delay occurred in supplying the documents or providing the affidavits to the counsel. It seems that the higher official of the bank are not being apprised or made aware of such delay in these high stake cases by the negligent officers and therefore being enlightened by the duly quoted but not reported guide line of Hon’ble Apex Court:

…..The govt. departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for govt. departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

……In our view it is the right time to inform all the govt. bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. …. All this shows sheer and utter negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the case and such a conduct of the appellant is highly reprehensible. CJI-Justice A. K. Sikri & P.K. Jain, JJ

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 of almost one year and yet is at initial stage of service which is contrary to the spirit of the Act. 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.27.00 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…….” Whereas contrary to the that one counsel has made a representation on 02.07.2018 under signature copy of which was received vide diary no.381 dated 06.07.2018 by showing their annoyance that P.O as well as R.O of this DRT are indulging in the practice of sending the copy of order and notices to the higher authorities of the bank & cautioned the judicial officer that no copy should be sent to the higher authorities of the bank abstract of representation is as under: “…SENDING OF COPIES OF ORDERS/NOTICES TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES OF THE BANKS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-I & RECOVERY OFFICERS OF DRTS: The Presiding Officer, DRT-I and as well as the Recovery Officers of the DRTs who are indulging in such practice may be requested not to send the copies of the orders or Notices to the higher authorities of the Banks. The copies of the orders sent by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh to the higher authorities of the Banks in a selective manner against certain Advocates was condemned. It was further resolved that in case any such orders are sent to the higher authorities by the Presiding officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh or by any Recovery officer, then there will be a complete boycott of the concerned Presiding

Officer or the Recovery officer as the case may be. It was further decided that the Executive Committee and certain Senior members of the Bar would apprise the Presiding officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh of this Resolution today itself so that he may stop the practice of sending orders in a pick & choose and selective manner and further not to tarnish the image of the Advocates by communicating the Banks who are also litigants like any other litigant……” Therefore, to avoid the hurdles and feeling ourselves helpless and to kept the relation cordial between the Bench and BAR we have decided not to send copy to any of the higher officials may be the case could be lingered on for years together for want of certain documents and let the institution be in slumber. Therefore, in the light of above discussions as the counsel who is the mouthpiece of the bank has conveyed the bank could not be penalized for the negligent and irresponsible act of concerned officer of the bank. The above guidelines are sufficient to reach the deaf ears of the concerned officers. Therefore, taking lenient view with a warning to concerned officer & Law officer who failed to assist the concerned counsel delay is condoned and IA stands disposed of accordingly.

Interim relief. I have come to the conclusion that a prime facie case in favour of the Applicant Bank is made out. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of Applicant Bank, therefore, I am of the considered view that if exparte interim relief is not granted, applicant bank may suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, by this order, defendants (mortgagors), their agents, heirs, servants, assignees etc. are restrained from transferring, alienating, selling or otherwise dealing with or disposing of mortgaged properties in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of this case. The defendants further directed to disclose particulars of properties or assets other than properties mortgaged with the Bank alongwith details of their bank accounts on affidavit on or before the next date of hearing. The defendants may file reply/WS within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons with an advance copy to the applicant. Thereafter, applicant shall be at liberty to file replication, if any within seven days.

Be listed on 11.02.2019 for completion of service and pleadings.”

The Bank was directed to serve the defendants registered as well as dasti, but the Bank could not serve dasti and filed service report through registered post. At the request of the Bank notices through publication was directed to be served vide order 11.02.2019. Instead of filing service report on 30.04.2019, the counsel for the Bank asked for issuance of fresh notices through publication again, that too

without giving any ground for non-compliance of earlier order,hence, the OA was dismissed vide order dt.30.04.2019. Now, the Applicant is saying that the matter escaped attention has no ground as repeated conduct of the applicant itself shows their deliberate inattentive and lethargic attitude towards the orders passed by the Court as is proved from the fact that the Bank itself delayed the matter for two years and is still at initial stage.

Since no ground has been made out, the MA is dismissed.

File be consigned to record. (Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 08.08.2019/cms