PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs ORGANIC AQUA INDUSTRIES on 26 September 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH

MA No.82/19 In OA No.739/19 PNB Vs Organic Aqua Industries & Ors.

26.09.2019 Item No.14

Present: Shri Rajesh Gupta, counsel for the applicant bank

This Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant bank for restoration of O.A. No.739/19 whereby OA was dismissed for non compliance of order. Since the OA was at initial stage of service, hence no purpose will be solved to issue notice upon defendant in MA and no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties. Now the prayer of the applicant is that the concerned Advocate/applicant bank lost track of the case due to Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court judgment in CWP 21860/18 titled as Kirti Kapoor and Anr. Vs UOI wherein notification no. S.O. 4312(E) dated 06.09.2018 of the DFS Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance was stayed and subsequent clarification of the ministry and adjournment thereof due to which case was dismissed due to non compliance of order on 05.09.2019. I have heard the counsel for the applicant and perused the record. There were thousands of cases who lost the track of the case due to Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court judgment in CWP 21860/18 titled as Kirti Kapoor and Anr. Vs UOI wherein notification no. S.O. 4312(E) dated 06.09.2018 of the DFS Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance was stayed and subsequent clarification of the ministry and adjournment thereof but they followed the track thereafter. Presuming to be the averments made by the counsel for the applicant if true, it seems that the concerned officers of Law Department of bank are not taking care of cases, not even aware of the stage of the proceedings and it seems that if impliedly either counsel or bank itself has admittedly wants to convey that once the case is filed and be forget and did not even took pain to ask for the status for 4 months and neither concerned Law Department taken care to ask for status of case nor same was asked through counsel which shows negligence and irresponsible conduct on the part of counsel as well as concerned officers of law department of bank. Not only this, the abstracts of the order dated 05.09.2019 are more important: 05.09.2019 Despite calling the matter number of times none appeared on behalf of applicant bank. Service report has not been filed by the applicant bank till today in compliance of order dated 23.05.2019. Perusal of record shows that this OA was filed on 25.03.2019 and thereafter vide order dated 23.05.2019 the applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through registered as well as dasti to be returned by 19.07.2019 but the applicant bank has failed to file service report even after lapse of four months. Today, neither service report is on record nor anyone appeared on behalf of applicant bank to assist the court even after 3rd pass over. 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, neither Nodal officer/ Law officer are present in the court to assist the court nor service report is on record even after laps of four months, 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, apparent on its face that a sufficient time of more than four months were with the bank from last order. It appears that the applicant bank is not interested to pursue the matter seriously and just to facilitate the defaulters by prolonging the litigants itself has not filed service report till today. It seems that applicant bank has lost interest in this case and just for the sake of keeping it pending neither Nodal officer/Law Officer or any representing on behalf of applicant bank is coming forward to assist the court by filing service report, 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. 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 has taken more than 120 days in filing the service report, without explaining, why such delay occurred in filing the service report. 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

Since, it is public institution and recovery of the institution is at stake which could not be affected because of some irregularities on the part of the concerned negligent officers. Hence, MA is allowed and order dated 05.09.2019 is hereby recalled and OA be registered at its Original Number with a direction to send a copy of this order through learned Registrar to the General Manager (Recovery) at Head Office and copy to the CMD to ensure that in future no such type of lapses will occur when case is filed before the Tribunal so as to recovery of dues speedily. Copy of this order be placed in OA file. This file be tagged alongwith OA.

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

Rajinder 26.09.2019