Delhi High Court
Punjab And Sind Bank vs Sh. Harish Bhasin And Ors on 30 April, 2025
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th APRIL, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ W.P.(C) 12001/2018
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv.
versus
SH. HARISH BHASIN AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Thareja and Ms. Archisha
Satyarthi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The Petitioner herein seeks to challenge a Judgment and Order dated
21.08.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as "DRAT") setting aside the Order dated 05.09.2014 passed by
the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRT"), whereby
the DRT has disposed of an original application being O.A. No.56/2004
filed by the Petitioner herein and directed the Registry of the DRT to issue a
recovery certificate for the sum of Rs.3,38,34,981.32/- alongwith the
accrued interest @ 10% from the date of filing of the said application. The
entire order of the DRT is reproduced hereinunder:-
"The ld counsel for the applicant bank submits that the
applicant has already received a sum of Rs.2.05 crores
from the defendants no.3, 4 and 7 and in view of the
same these defendants no.3, 4 and 7 have been
released from this matter. She further submits that this
Tribunal, vide its order dated 31.01.2013, directed the
defendants no.5 and 6 to clear the balance dues of the
applicant bank alongwith future interest @ 10% simple
within a period of 60 days but till date these defendants
have not cleared the balance dues of the applicant
bank and she has also prayed for issuance of recovery
certificate in terms of the order dated 31.01.2013.
2. After hearing the ld counsels for both the parties,
perused the records and this Tribunal is of the view
that the remaining defendants no.1, 2, 5 and 6 have
already availed more than sufficient time to clear the
balance dues of the applicant as per the direction of
this Tribunal but till date they have complied with the
direction of this Tribunal. In view of the conduct of the
defendants, I hereby direct the registry of this Tribunal
to issue the recovery certificate for a sum of
Rs.3,38,34,981.32 (less the amount already deposited
by the defendants) alongwith future interest @ 10%
simple to be charged from the date of filling of this
O.A. till the date of realization against the defendants
no.1, 2, 5 and 6 as per the order dated 31.01.2013
passed by this Tribunal.
3. Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery
Officer-DRT-III, Delhi on 31.10.2014.
4. With the above observations, the present original
application is disposed of."
2. The said order was challenged by the Respondents herein by filing an
appeal bearing No. 109/2017 before the Ld. DRAT.
3. After giving the background facts of the case in great detail, the Ld.
DRAT set aside the order of the DRT i.e., Order dated 05.09.2014 on the
ground that the DRT has not considered the pleas raised by the Respondents
herein i.e., Appellants before the Ld. DRAT, while passing the said order
and the O.A. has been allowed without giving any reasons. A perusal of the
same discloses that the order passed by the DRT is completely unreasoned.
4. It is well settled that a judicial order has to be passed by recording
sufficient reasons, however, in the instant case the DRT has issued a
recovery certificate to the Petitioner herein without substantiating the same
with any reasons. The said stance is supported by the observations made by
the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite
(P) Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 443, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"14. Time and again, this Court has emphasised on
the courts the need to pass reasoned order in every
case which must contain the narration of the bare
facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues
arising in the case, the submissions urged by the
parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues
involved and the reasons in support of the findings on
all the issues arising in the case and urged by the
learned counsel for the parties in support of its
conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division
Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while
disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view,
has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties
because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why
one party has won and other has lost. We can never
countenance the manner in which such order was
passed by the High Court which has compelled us to
remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the
writ petition afresh on merits."
(emphasis supplied)
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has tried to make an argument that
the order passed by the DRT is primarily based on admission and
accordingly, has relied on Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Learned Counsel
for the Petitioner has also relied on the Judgment passed by the Apex Court
in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India & Ors., (2000) 7
SCC 120 to support her contentions.
6. However, a perusal of the order of the DRT does not show that the
said O.A. has been allowed on the basis of admissions in the reply. The only
reason given by the DRT is that the Respondents had availed sufficient time
to clear the balance dues but since they have not complied with the
directions of the DRT and their conduct not being satisfactory, the recovery
certificate is being issued.
7. This Court is of the opinion that since the O.A. has not been disposed
of on the basis of admission but on merits, the DRT ought to have
considered the case on merits by providing proper and sufficient reasons as
to why the recovery certificate is being issued to the Petitioner herein. Mere
observation as to the misconduct of the Respondent herein is not sufficient
to allow an O.A. by the DRT.
8. The order of remand therefore does not warrant any interference.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed along with pending
applications, if any.
10. Considering the fact that the Petitioner/Bank has filed the OA as early
as 2014 and the present petition is pending since 2018, this Court is of the
view that the instant matter shall be disposed of by the DRT, positively,
within three months from today.
11. It is made clear that this Court has purposely not gone into the facts of
the case in detail lest it would prejudice the case of either parties. It is also
made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of
the case or on the findings of the Ld. DRAT, if any, while remanding the
matter back to the DRT, and the scope of this order is confined only with the
order passed by the DRT, which in the opinion of this Court, is completely
unreasoned.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
APRIL 30, 2025
hsk
