DRT functioning pace draws flak
| |
The number of cases pending disposal seems to be on the rise as far as
the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Coimbatore,
is concerned. Lawyers and bankers awaiting
orders remain an anguished lot.
The reason for the slump in pace of disposal is mainly
attributed to the absence of the Presiding Officer (PO),
who had gone on long leave.
The PO at Madurai holding additional charge
of Coimbatore is visiting once a fortnight.
A cross section of bankers approaching the lawyers seems to have lost faith in the system, because orders have not been issued in many cases. Bankers pointed out that it was taking more than 18 to 24 months to even get a recovery certificate.
L.S. Lakshmanan, president, DRT Advocates Association, said originally two DRTs were sanctioned for Coimbatore, but even before DRT II took off, the Government notified the establishment of new DRTs in Madurai and Chennai, reallocating the districts for the DRTs.
This resulted in Coimbatore, Nilgiris and Tirupur districts remaining with Coimbatore while Erode, Salem, Namakkal, Tiruchi, Dindigul, Theni and Madurai districts were transferred to the jurisdiction of DRT, Madurai. Dharmapuri and Pudukottai districts that remained with DRT, Coimbatore, were transferred to DRT III in Chennai.
WritMr. Lakshmanan said that the association filed a writ before the Madras High Court seeking justification for such reallocation, especially because districts such as Salem, Erode and Namakkal were within a radius of 100 - 150 km from here.
The Government in its counter contended that the redistribution of the districts was not on the basis of geographical location or proximity, but on account of the number of pending cases.
Perusal of the pending cases reveal that 901 cases were pending before DRT, Coimbatore, compared to 2,260 in 2002 when DRT came into being i.e., when files were transferred from DRT I and II, Chennai.
“The disposal rate had been speedy and it witnessed a slump only when the post of Presiding Officer remained vacant between 2003 and 2005,” Mr. Lakshmanan said. But things started improving thereafter and it was short lived.
The bone of contention now is not just the absence of PO alone. The concerns include staff shortage and jurisdiction issue consequent to the establishment of a DRT in Madurai.
DelayTransfer of cases to tribunals based on jurisdiction often led to a delay of six months for disposal since it required fresh serving of notices to all defendants after re-numbering the cases in the new tribunal, he said.
Similarly, indexing, transportation of bundles, verification and re-numbering of cases also added up to the delay. Hence, transfer of cases pertaining to Erode and Salem would be only a counter productive measure, he added.
A Special Leave Petition filed by the DRT Advocates Association against the order of the High Court had been admitted and was due to be heard soon, said Mr. Lakshmanan.
Many advocates say that since DRT is a forum for adjudication of cases, it should function under the Law Ministry. And the Presiding Officer should be well-versed in Civil Law. Appointment of a retired/sitting District Judge as the PO will be ideal.
Mr. Lakshmanan said that the proceedings under the Securities and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests (SARFAESI) Act also faced similar problems because the DRT was the platform for recovering bank dues. The delay and backlog has come as a blessing in disguise for the borrowers who eventually become the beneficiaries.
There have been instances of the borrowers selling out properties ignoring the banks’ charges, the advocates point out.
They also want the mortgages to be outside the purview of the SARFAESI Act and should be brought under the scanner.
Posts
