BANK OF INDIA vs Sewa Singh and Ors on 24 August 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH

MA 47 of 2019 in OA 1661 of 2018

Bank of India

Vs.

Sewa Singh & Anr.

24.08.2019 Item No.3

Advocate: Sh. K.K. Goyal, Counsel for the Applicant.

This Misc. Application has been filed by the Applicant for recalling order dt.08.05.2019 and for restoration of OA which was dismissed for non complaice of order.

The Counsel for the Applicant has argued that the summons could not be served upon the defendants inspite of the fact that the same were received from the Registry due to reshuffling, transfer of Chief Manager and other staff and no one could tell the new incumbent that the dasti service could not be effected upon the defendants. The counsel for the Applicant undertakes to serve the defendants dasti as per the orders of the Court and prayed that since the public money is involved the order dt.08.05.2019 be recalled and OA be restored to its number.

Before the prayer of the Applicant could be considered, it is worth mentioning that this case was filed on 26.07.2018. Twice detailed order was passed, i.e., on 07.02.2019 and 08.05.2019 but the Applicant failed to comply with the orders. Order dt.08.05.2019 is reproduced hereunder: “The proxy counsel for the applicant bank instead of filing the detailed service report has filed one vague two lines affidavit of Shri Simar Parkash, Manager Credit, Bank of India, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) stating that summons were sent to all the LRs as well as to the guarantors through Registered Post, even those were not taken by the defendants and she has stated that she received the same from bank for placing on record and also seeks another opportunity to file complete service report. 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 26.07.2018 i.e. more than 9 months ago and thereafter applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through Registered as well as Dasti vide order dated 12.10.2018 more than 6 months back. But the applicant bank has failed to serve the defendants. Thereafter, again on the request of counsel for the applicant bank notices through Registered as well as Dasti were issued vide detailed order dated 07.02.2019 to be returned by 08.05.2019. Today, the proxy counsel for the applicant bank has filed vague affidavit, which could not be considered as a service report as neither it bears the attachment of ‘Postal Receipt’ nor the ‘Dasti’ report or affixation. 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 is again seeking adjournment for filing complete service report, 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 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 filing service report on the pretext that she could not file complete service report after lapse of 90 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 3 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 or for filing the service report, hence case is dismissed for non compliance of the order.”

Now the plea of the Applicant who has filed one affidavit of Simar Parkash that summons were not served as the legal heir fo the Sewa Singh refused to take summons and the summons were sent to all the LRs as well as guarantors through registered post and even those were not taken by the defendants. This vague affidavit filed itself is incorrect as till date no service report either serving through registered post or dasti has been filed on record. This has compelled the court to pass the above order. Since the Applicant is a financial institution and custodian of public money, it should not suffer due to carelessness of one or two officers. Hence, the MA is allowed. OA restored. MA file be tagged with the OA file.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 24.08.2019/cms