IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6643 of 2009 Date of decision: May 1, 2009. Ravinder Mohan Jain ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. Shri R.S. Bajaj, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved at the action taken by the respondent-Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the 2002 Act). A brief reference to the facts may be made. The petitioner, who has established a concern under the name and style of M/s Special Machines, Karnal, availed a working capital advance in the year 1974 from the erstwhile The Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, Kanpur which was amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank in terms of the order of moratorium issued vide notification dated 24.5.1986, published in the Gazette of India on 18.12.1986. The petitioner approached the Bank to get the alleged fraudulent accounts maintained by the erstwhile Corporation rectified so as to enable the firm to start its dealings with the respondent-Bank. Subsequently, in terms of the agreement, two viability reports are claimed to have been prepared. The Bank filed a civil suit under Order 34 CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs.1.36 crores, allegedly without affixing court fee. In the meanwhile, Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was enacted and in terms of the provisions thereof, the civil suit filed by the Bank was relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh for adjudication in O.A. No.905 and 906 of 2000. The respondent-Bank thereafter initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and a notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioner on 5.10.2005. The petitioner challenged the action of the Bank before the Tribunal in S.A. No.8 of 2007. It appears that earlier also, the petitioner had filed CWP No.18805 of 2007 which was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the Tribunal. Though, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondent-Bank on a number of legal as well as factual grounds, including the vires of the amalgamation scheme itself yet his precise prayer is for early disposal of the aforementioned O.As. and S.A. pending before the DRT. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that it would not be appropriate for this court to issue a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the pending OAs and S.A. in a time-bound manner or out of turn. This Court is not aware of the total pendency, especially the oldest cases or the priorities, if any, given to such matters for the purpose of disposal by the DRT. Every court has its own methodology of docket management. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere in the functioning of the Tribunal. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter pertains to borrowings of 1974 and is pending before the Tribunal since the year 2000, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the learned DRT-I, Chandigarh may endeavour to decide the aforementioned O.As. and S.A. as early as possible and, if possible, before 31st June, 2009, which can be possible only by refusing un-warranted adjournments to the parties. Disposed of. Let a copy of this order, duly attested under the signatures of the Bench, be supplied to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the earliest, however, on production of a receipt regarding payment of usual charges prescribed for supply of a dasti copy. May 1, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge