PUNJAB AND SIND BANK vs Mohinder Ram on 28 August 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH

MA No.37/19 In OA No.1730/17 PSB Vs Mohinder Ram & Ors.

28.08.2019 Item No.87

Advocate: Sh. RS Kakkar, Counsel for the Applicant.

This Misc. Application has been filed by the Applicant for recalling order dt.08.04.2019 and for restoration of OA on the ground that the counsel for the Applicant missed to inform the Applicant Bank that summons for the Def. Nos. 3(a) to 3(d) were to be got published as per orders dt.12.11.2018. Before the prayer of the counsel for the applicant bank could be considered, I have perused the record which shows that vide order dated 28.02.2018 the applicant bank was directed to serve the defendant no.3 (a) to 3 (d) through substitute mode to be returned by 28.05.2018, but the applicant bank has failed to file service report. Again vide detailed order dated 12.11.2018 notices through substitute mode were issued at the request of the bank but the applicant bank has failed to file service report and again on the request of counsel for the applicant bank vide detailed order dated 21.01.2019 another opportunity was granted to serve the defendant no.3 (a) to 3 (d) through substitute mode to be returned by 08.04.2019 but service report has not been filed till today. Today again, the counsel for the applicant bank has failed to file service report and after lapse of 9 months prayed that since Def. Nos. 1 and 2 are already ex parte and it is not fault of the Bank but due to the counsel that the defendants No.3(a) to 3(d) could not be served through publication, the MA be allowed and OA be restored to its number. We are surprised at the conduct of the concerned counsel of the bank who has informed the court that he has missed to inform the Applicant Bank that summons for the Def. Nos. 3(a) to 3(d) were to be got published as per orders dt.12.11.2018, that too on 28.08.2019 after lapse of 9 months. If the counsel for the Applicant missed to inform the Applicant Bank that summons for the Def. Nos. 3(a) to 3(d) were to be got published as per orders dt.12.11.2018 neither Nodal Officer/Law Officer has taken care for the last nine months for service upon defendant either effected or not. Rather, the now after lapse of nine months statement is given that it occurs due to communication gap, meaning thereby the concerned officer now trying to cover up the lacuna had arranged the statement.

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 fresh notices after lapse of 9 months, without explaining, why such delay occurred in issuing the notices. 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

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, 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…….” Now in this case, in the light of above discussions we do not find that any leniency should be shown but as the statement has been made by the counsel for the applicant bank that it occurs due to communication gap, and the counsel for the applicant bank has assured that it should not be happened and it is public institution and recovery of the institution is at stake which could not be affected because of some irregularities & illegalities on the part of the concerned negligent officers. Since the counsel for the Applicant has outrightly stated to have forgotten to inform the Bank about the orders passed on 12.11.2018 and due to non compliance of which the OA was dismissed on 08.04.2019, taking the plea of the counsel to be true, the order dt.08.04.2019 is recalled. MA allowed. OA is restored to its number. Copy of this order be placed in OA file. This file be tagged alongwith OA and copy of this order be sent to the CMD as well as concerned General Manager (Recovery) at head office and concerned DGM/Circle head too.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh Rajinder 28.08.2019