Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Neelkanth Industries And Anr. vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce And Ors. on 21 September, 2001
JUDGMENT
A.K. Srivastava, Chairman
1. This appeal is against an interim order dated 17.9.2001 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 572/99.
2. The impugned order has been passed on the application of the appellant, a copy of which is at page 23 of the Paper Book of this appeal. Though the heading of that application is "Application for directing the applicant Bank to settle the matter as per the rehabilitation package", yet in the prayer clause the following has been stated :
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the applicant Bank to furnish the record and correctness of the annexures/reply/queries."
3. Along with the application in addition to an affidavit as many as 19 annexures were filed. These annexures, on perusal, appear to relate to certain rehabilitation package, which the appellant was seeking from the respondent Bank. From one of the annexures it appears that the General Manager of District Industries Centre, Sriganganagar had declared the appellant as a sick unit. It appears that on that basis the appellant was entering into a dialogue with the respondent Bank for certain rehabilitation package. Most of the annexures are letters written by the appellant to the respondent Bank. There is one annexure which appears to have been written by the respondent Bank to the appellant and that also "without prejudice". By that letter the respondent Bank had asked for certain information from the appellant relating to details of fixed assets, stock and machinery. There is no annexure, which may indicate that the respondent Bank had granted any rehabilitation package to the appellant. There is one more annexure, which is a letter of the respondent Bank to the appellant dated 21.7.2001 from which it may be found that the respondent Bank responded to appellant's letter dated 18.7.2001 and asked for certain information. That letter is Annexure Rule 8 at page 65 of the Paper Book. In that letter the appellant was requested to give the information soon so that necessary action could be started by the respondent Bank. The letter of the appellant dated 18.7.2001 is annexure Rule 17 at page 63 of the Paper Book. By that letter the appellant had requested the respondent Bank to rehabilitate the appellant's unit.
4. The above would indicate that the appellant is approaching the respondent Bank for rehabilitation package and, perhaps, the respondent Bank is considering the request and that is why certain information has been sought from the appellant. But it is certain that as yet the respondent Bank has not decided to give any rehabilitation package to the appellant.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged before me that the Tribunal ought to have directed the respondent Bank to state the correctness of the annexures to the application and that the learned Tribunal below did not appreciate the prayer made in the application and passed the impugned order on the impression that the appellant was seeking a direction to the respondent to settle the claim of the applicant as per the rehabilitation package. May be, learned Counsel for the appellant is correct on that point, but on perusal of the annexures filed along with that application I do not find any ground for entering into the enquiry which the prayer clause of the application is seeking. What for the enquiry ? If there is any correspondence between the appellant and the respondent Bank relating to grant of any rehabilitation package, that is not germane to the issue before the Tribunal below. It has only to adjudicate the claim application of the Bank and after adjudication if any debt is found due, it has to issue a Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer who, in his turn, would proceed to recover the money. The Tribunal is not empowered under the Act to direct the claimant Bank to give rehabilitation package to any defendant. Likewise, the Tribunal has no power to direct the Bank to settle the claim out of Court. Therefore, if the appellant is hopeful of having a rehabilitation package from the respondent Bank, it should act fast for having the same from the Bank out of the Tribunal as the Tribunal is not empowered under the Act to deal with that issue. It is not understandable why the Bank is not acting fast if it is considering giving of any rehabilitation package to the appellant and is entering into correspondence with it. The interest of the Bank should be to anyhow recover the dues from the appellant and in case the Bank finds that the recovery would be more easy by giving a rehabilitation package and not by enforcing a decree in an application, the Bank should decide at the earliest so that the time of the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer is not unnecessarily wasted fruitlessly. The duty is cast on the Banks also to see as to how best they can make recoveries of their dues. By killing the hen or only by taking the eggs. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has also expressed his anguish on the conduct of the respondent Bank.
However, the Tribunal below cannot be directed to direct the Bank to act in a particular manner. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order. There is no cause for any interference.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that from 1.4.2001 Rs. 1.25 crores turnover has taken place in the accounts of the respondent Bank and the Tribunal below while passing the final orders should take into account the same. This is a matter with the Tribunal below. The appellant may submit before the Tribunal below and in that case the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below shall take the confirmation from the respondent Bank on that point and then would decide according to law.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
Copy of this order may be given Dasti to the appellant.