SUTLEJ GRAMIN BANK vs Sukhdev Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh on 8 August 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH

MA 59 of 2019 Sutlej Gramin Bank Vs. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.

08.08.2019

Item No.55

Advocate: Sh. R.S. Kakkar, Advocate proxy for Sh. AS Kakkar, Counsel for the Applicant.

This Application has been filed by the Applicant for recalling order dt.27.05.2019 whereby the OA was dismissed in default for non compliance of order.

The Counsel for the applicant argued that the Applicant is a public institution and custodian of public money and if the above order is not recalled the Applicant would have irrepairable loss. The Counsel for the Applicant argued that on the said date the counsel had requested to adjourn the case for filing of service report as the defendants had refused to accept the summons and that the Affidavit in suppor of service has not been received from the branch in time. But with passing of detailed order, the OA was dismissed for default. The Counsel for the Applicant prayed that the MA be allowed and OA be restored to its original number.

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 has been filed on 28.05.2018 which was taken up on 13.07.2018 and while granting interim relief, the Applicant was directed to serve the defendants through registered as well as dasti summons to be returned by 22.09.2018. Thereafter this matter was adjourned to 04.10.2018 on which date neither the service report was filed nor anyone from the Applicant was present to inform the position to the court. Therefore, a detailed order was passed on 04.10.2018 and the matter was adkourned to 11.03.2019. On that day too the Applicant failed to file service report rather prayed for issuance of fresh summons which was allowed while passing a detailed order and the matter was adjourned to 27.05.2019. But the Applicant again failed to file service report on 27.05.2019 and prayed for issuance of fresh summons. Hence, the OA was dismissed through a detailed order, which is reproduced as under:

“Case was fixed for filing the Service Report which was directed vide order dated 11.03.2019 and for which notices were duly issued by the Registry on 25.03.2019 to be returned by 27.05.2019 but instead of filing the Service Report Counsel for the Applicant Bank prayed for the issuance of fresh Notices. But before the prayer of the Applicant could be considered it is worth mentioning that in this case which was filed on 28.05.2018. A detailed order was passed on 11.03.2019 which is Reproduced herein below The detailed order dated 11.03.2019 was reproduced herein below:- “The case was fixed for filing the service report qua defendants by way of registered post as well through dasti, but the applicant bank has failed to file service report and prays for issuance of fresh summons. It is really surprising that the applicant bank who has filed this OA on 28.05.2018 was directed to serve the defendants vide order dated 13.07.2018 to be returned by 22.09.2018 but the applicant bank has failed to serve the defendants and again vide detailed order dated 04.10.2018 the applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through registered as well as dasti to be returned by 11.03.2019. Today, the counsel for the bank again prayed for issuance of fresh notice as the earlier service could not be effected. 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 adjournment time and again for serving the notice upon defendants, without explaining, why such delay occurred in serving the notices upon defendants. 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.

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.10.00 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 a counsel Shri I.P. Singh, Advocate of one of the bank given a written representation on 02.07.2018, received on 06.07.2018 under his 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, without disturbing the comfort of the officers of the bank the matter in hand which has already been delayed let the bank be in slumber should file the service report as per its own comfort date and to avoid the sacrifice of judicious time on such unjustified adjournments. We are compelled to put if for a long adjournment on 27.05.2019. Let fresh summons be issued to all the defendants Under Section 19(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, along with copy of the OA along with copy of this order, as required under Rule 4(3) DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 be sent by registered AD/Speed Post as well as Dasti, if the defendants refuse to acknowledge the Dasti, the same be affected through affixation, to the defendants calling upon the defendants to file written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of summon with an advance copy to the Applicant.” Now when the Applicant Bank has failed to file the Service Report and no specific or justified reason has been explained by the concerned officers of the Bank despite the above detailed order which should rather be an eye opener to the higher officials of the Bank who ignoring the same again asking for adjournment knowing fully well that earlier thrice the opportunity was granted to the Bank. From the above, it seems that the Applicant Bank is nto interested in recovery on the one hand whereas on the other wants to show in record that they are making efforts for recovering its dues. Therefore be fully stick with the observations in the above order I do not find any ground to further allow the Bank to sacrifice the judicious time and as for the non- compliance of the order. OA is dismissed.”

Now the Applicant states that they had served the defendants through registered post but could not file the required affidavit in time, as the same was not received from the branch, which till today the Bank has failed to place on record even. It clearly reflects that the concerned officer of the Bank is making a lame excuses on the one hand and on the other shedding crocodile tears in the name of public money. It is also found that even though a copy of the order was sent to the higher authorities yet the cncerned officer is still in slumber and has not realised its repeated mistakes. However, as the counsel for the Applicant has prayed and tendered unconditional apology, the above order is recalled. MA is allowed.

OA is restored to its original number.

A copy of this order be sent to the CMD and GM at Head Office of the Applicant Bank for information.

MA file be attached with the OA file. (Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 08.08.2019/cms