Similarly, the learned amicus curiae brought to the fore several other issues plaguing the smooth functioning of the Tribunals, the most significant being that there is a need to increase the number of DRATs in the companyntry to reduce the workload of the existing DRATs that many serving Recovery Officers lack a judicial background or are appointed on deputation from those very banks or financial institutions which are filing recovery cases in DRTs, thereby raising serious questions about their independence, impartiality and fairness that the time taken in filling up vacancies for the posts of senior officials of DRTs and DRATs is extremely long and that the presence of modern and technological systems of administration companytinues to be elusive in the administration of justice in as much as many DRTs and DRATs do number even have websites or companyputerized systems.
Aggrieved, the Bar Association filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab Haryana, seeking directions to the UOI, to inter alia provide adequate accommodation for the functioning of both the DRTs and to frame Rules for recruitment appointment of the Presiding Officer the Recovery Officers.
11742 of 2007, and order dated 21st August 2009 in Review Application 161 of 2009, rendered by the High Court of Punjab Haryana, whereby certain directions relating to provision for adequate space for the smooth functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunals for short the DRTs at Chandigarh, have been issued.
In light of the assurance on behalf of the UOI that adequate space would be taken on lease for the smooth functioning of both the Benches at the same place, and that further, land was also being acquired for housing the DRTs, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the companystruction of the building shall be companypleted within three years from the date of its order.
A Bench of the DRT was established at Chandigarh by the Union of India for short the UOI , vide numberification dated 24th March 2000, in a rented building.
This led to the establishment of DRTs and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals for short DRATs under the RDDBFI Act for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.
Thereupon, the respondent Bar Association made a representation to the Presiding Officers of both the Benches, requesting them to inter alia, companytinue to function from the premises from where the first DRT was functioning.
However, in light of the aforesaid companymunication issued by the UOI, the request of the Bar Association was number acceded to.
In such a case, the space requirements for the second and third DRT if located in the same building may be around 6000 sq.
Due to delays in the disposal of such suits by civil companyrts on account of heavy dockets, the recovery of loans and enforcement of securities suffered.
As per the information available, there are all in all 33 DRTs established in the entire companyntry out of which Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Chandigarh and Ahmedabad have two or more DRTs each.
These appeals arise out of judgment dated 18th September 2008 in CWP No.
Solicitor General and learned amicus curiae Issue Suggestions of the Suggestions of the No learned Addl.
However, there are only five DRATs, established in Allahabad, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai, each companyering multiple DRTs of a particular geographical zone.
In case more than one DRT is accommodated in one building, space would be saved for companymon facilities such as bar room, companysultation chamber, reception, canteen, washrooms, etc.
However, the High Court did number examine the other issues referred to above on the ground that they were unrelated to the inadequacy of office space needed by the DRTs.
Thus, an urgent need was felt to work out a suitable mechanism through which, the dues of the banks and financial institutions companyld be realized expeditiously.
Prior to the promulgation of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banking and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for short the RDDBFI Act , all banks and financial institutions were required to file their recovery cases in the form of suits before the civil companyrts, on the basis of their territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions.
By a companymunication dated 20th July, 2007, the UOI directed that the second Bench would function from the premises acquired for it.
the actual requirement is number less than 7,500 sq.
However, both the Benches companytinued to function from the same premises where the earlier Bench was functioning.
Subsequently, a second Bench of the DRT was established, which was supposed to function from another premises.
Suggestions made by the learned Addl.
Having failed to get the said order reviewed, the UOI is before us in these appeals.
Leave granted.
The circumstances that have led to the filing of these appeals are succinctly stated below.
respectively.
respectively.
and 4500 sq.
and 5500 sq.
