Delhi High Court
Bank Of India vs Hotel Kashish International And ... on 16 October, 2017
$~3.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7897/2016 and CM APPL. 32692/2016
BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate
versus
HOTEL KASHISH INTERNATIONAL AND ORS..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with
Mr. Akash Raj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
ORDER
% 16.10.2017
1. The petitioner/Bank is aggrieved by an order dated 31.03.2016 passed
by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Miscellaneous Appeal
No. 66/2016, filed by the respondent assailing an order dated 10.06.2014
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (DRT-I) whereby an ex parte order
dated 11.02.2013 passed earlier, was set aside, subject to the respondent
paying 50% of the amount due to the bank.
2. In the impugned order, the learned DRAT had observed that the
direction issued to the respondent to deposit 50% of the amount due to the
petitioner/Bank was too harsh and accordingly, the said condition was set
aside and it was directed that the respondent was entitled to be heard on
merits, after the ex parte order dated 10.02.2013 was set aside, subject to
payment of costs of Rs.1 lac to the petitioner/Bank.
3. On 12.05.2017, we had enquired from learned counsel for the
petitioner/Bank as to whether the costs imposed by the DRAT had been
tendered to the other side. Learned counsel had submitted that the costs were
tendered and accepted by the Bank without prejudice to its rights. At that,
we had asked learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank to inform us as to
whether the Bank had taken any effective steps to pursue the pending
Original Application filed by it before the DRT, in view of the fact that the
ex-parte order dated 10.02.2013 had been set aside by the DRAT vide order
dated 31.03.2016 and there was no stay granted in this petition, in respect of
the proceedings before the DRT. The reply was, however, in the negative.
4. Given the above position, it was deemed appropriate to direct the
Senior Manager of the petitioner/Bank to explain the inaction on the part of
the Bank in pursuing the matter against the respondent before the DRT after
31.03.2016. Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit has been filed by Shri
Satnam Singh, Senior Manager of the petitioner/Bank, wherein he has
sought to explain that the Bank did not pursue the proceedings before the
DRT after passing of the order dated 31.03.2016 by the DRAT under an
impression that if the Bank would pursue the said proceedings, then it would
have amounted to acceptance of the impugned order and the present petition
would have been rendered infructuous.
5. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation, particularly, when
there was no stay of the proceedings before the DRT directed in the present
petition. In other words, the petitioner/Bank was expected to have pursued
the proceedings against the respondent before the DRT-I. The inaction on
the part of the petitioner/Bank is all the more incongruous in view of the fact
that while the Bank has accepted the costs of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the
learned DRAT while setting aside the ex-parte order dated 10.02.2013,
without prejudice to its rights, it has simply sat back thereafter, instead of
taking effective steps to prosecute the pending Original Application filed
against the respondent, knowing very well that this court had not stayed the
said proceedings and the doctrine of lis pendis would have applied.
6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner/Bank states on instructions
that the Bank would be satisfied if directions are issued to the DRT to
expedite the hearing in the pending Original Application.
7. It is noteworthy that no steps have been taken by the petitioner/Bank
for the past one and a half year to even approach the Recovery Officer for
cancellation of the Recovery Certificate and for placing the matter back
before the DRT-I. Ideally, costs ought to be imposed on the petitioner/Bank
for adopting such a casual approach and that too in respect of an Original
Application where public money of over Rs.10 crores is involved.
8. While cautioning the petitioner/Bank to be more vigilant in future,
this Court is refraining from passing any adverse orders against it. The next
date fixed before the Recovery Officer is stated to be 07.11.2017. The
petitioner/Bank is directed to take immediate steps to approach the Recovery
Officer for seeking cancellation of the Recovery Certificate and for getting
the matter placed back before the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, for taking
denovo proceeding in the matter.
9. Having regard to the time lost on account of the indolent approach
adopted by the petitioner/Bank and its officers, the DRT-I is requested to
expedite the hearing in the Original Application and take it to its logical
conclusion.
10. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application, while
leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
HIMA KOHLI, J
A.K. CHAWLA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2017
rkb/na
