Icici Bank Ltd. v. Gauravjeet Singh And ORS.
$~ *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
36, 38, 39,40, 43 & + W.P.(C) 13283/2019 ICICI BANK LTD.
Petitioner Through: Mr Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate.
versus fflMANSHU SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.
Respondents Through:
None.
+ W.P.(C) 13287/2019 ICICI BANK LTD.
Petitioner Through: Mr Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate.
versus GAURAVJEET SINGH AND ORS.
Respondents Through:
None.
+ W.P.(C) 13288/2019 ICICI BANK LTD.
Petitioner Through: Mr Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate.
versus VIJAY KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.
Respondents Through:
None.
+ W.P.(C) 13289/2019 ICICI BANK LTD.
Petitioner Through: Mr Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate.
versus PANKAJ BHARDWAJ AND ORS.
Respondents Through:
None.
Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
^
+ ICICI BANK LTD.
W.P.(C) 13301/2019 , Petitioner Through: Mr Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate.
versus RUPESHCHA^®RAPODDARANDORS.
Respondents Through:
None.
+ ICICI BANK LTD.
W.P.(C) 13302/2019 Petitioner Through: Mr Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate.
versus PRADEEP KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS.
Respondents Through:
None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 17.12.2019 CM APPL. 54007/2019 lexemptionl in W.P.fCI 13283/2019 CM APPL. 54023/2019 (exemption^ in W.P.IC113287/2019 CM APPL. 54024/2019 lexemptionl in W.P.lCl 13288/2019 CM APPL. 54025/2019 texemptionl in W.P.IC1 13289/2019 CM APPL. 54079/2019 rexemptioni in W.P.lCl 13301/2019 CM APPL. 54081/2019 lexemptionl in W.P.IC113302/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.lCl 13283/2019 W.P.tCl 13287/2019 W.P.ICI 13288/2019 W.P.(C) 13289/2019 W.P.(0 13301/2019 W.P.rO 13302/201Q
2. In all these matters, a short point arises for determination, for which „ of 5
notice is not required to be issued to the Respondents, since it involves the functioning of the Registry of the Debt Recoveiy Tribunal ('DRT').
3. In each of the present petitions, the Petitioner bank had filed original applications (OAs). The said OAs were lying in defect. The question then arose as regards the curing of the defect and re-filing the OAs. By the general orders dated 28^^ December, 2016 and 13'^ January, 2017 the Registry of the DRT-III stated inter alia that if the defects notified by the Registry were not rectified by the time specified, registration of those OAs would be declined.
4. Aggrieved by such omnibus orders, chamber appeals were filed under Rule 5 (5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, accompanied by applications for condonation of delay in filing such chamber appeals. The orders were passed in the said chamber appeals on 19^^ July, 2019 by the DRT-II, relegating the Petitioner again to the Registry to cure the defects, subject to the Petitioner bank paying costs of Rs.20,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, as a last opportunity, failing which the OAs would not be entertained by the DRT-III.
5. The appeals filed by the Petitioner against the said order, were rejected by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('DRAT'), by its order dated 2F^ October, 2019.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Court is of the view that the question whether the defects notified by the Registry of the DRT were in fact cured within the time stipulated is a question that had to be
decided by the DRT, and could not have been relegated to the Registry. In other words, the question that the DRT had to determine was whether the defects pointed out by the Registry of the DRT in its "report on the scrutiny of the applications" stood rectified?
7. According to the Petitioner, those defects in the present cases, were indeed rectified, despite which, the Registry of the DRT, in an omnibus order, notified that if the defects were not cured by the time as stipulated in such orders, registration would be declined. It is this omnibus order that has led.to filing of the Chamber Appeals, in the first place.
8. The Court agrees with the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the question of whether the defects actually stand cured or not, as claimed by the Petitioner, ought to be decided by the DRT, since the decision of the Registry already formed a view in the matter. The course that should be adopted in such cases is for the Registry of the DRT to place the OAs, which according to the Registry of the DRT continue to remain defective even beyond the deadline stipulated, before the DRT, together with the defect report and for the counsel to first satisfy the DRT that those defects stand rectified. The question whether the delay in curing the defects deserves to be condoned, subject to terms, will also be decided by the DRT concerned.
9. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 19^^ July, 2019 of the DRT-III in all these matters and the corresponding order dated October, 2019 passed by the DRAT are hereby set aside. The OAs, together with the applications filed in the OAs, are restored to the file of the DRT-III for the decision, first on whether the defects pointed out by the Registry of
^ f the DRT-III, in each of the OAs stand cured or not.
10. The OAs, along with the applications be now listed before the DRT-III, on 21 January, 2020.
11. The petitions are disposed of in above terms. No costs. S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANTSINGlf, J.
DECEMBER 17,2019 rd w W.P.(C) 13283/2019 & connected matters