Source: http://www.drtsolutions.com/WeeklyMail-71-80.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 01:02:25
Document Index: 297291832

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 137', 'Art. 136', 'Art. 135', 'Art. 118', 'Art. 134', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 117']

Weekly Mails - 71st to 80th
DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 80th Issue dated13th November �09
(1) Chairman, Directors and Executive Officer of a Bank arrested:-
One of our clients from Nagpur has informed that in a Co-operative Bank many of the borrowers of bank defaulted causing cancellation of license of the bank. Due to public outcry, the State Govt. has initiated action against all the directors of the bank including the Chairman. FIR was filed, they were arrested, and charges filed against the directors and executive officer of the Bank. The said bank officials and directors desired seeking advice of �DRT Legal Solutions� Our reply was as under:-
(1) The Chairman can not escape from his responsibility as the RBI Guidelines and related Banking Laws hold him ultimate responsible.
(2) This is the reason that in all our counter-claim and damage suits we make Chairman as the necessary party.
(3) Since all our studies and efforts are in favour of Borrowers, we have not made any studies as to how to save the bank officials including the Chairman.
(4) Many bank officials approach us, they are prepared to offer heavy fees but we decline as it requires massive studies as well as change in our mindset which at the moment is not possible.
(2) Strategy to ensure that Facts are not overlooked or side tracked in DRT Litigations:-
We have been receiving complaints from many of our clients that on several occasions, the complex facts relating to Business, Industry and Banking are neither understood nor placed before the DRT or High Court Judges. Further the entrepreneur of sick units can not approach competent lawyers and cheaper young lawyers may even spoil the case. Correction of any wrong decision at any stage may prove to be very expensive and time consuming rather it may become impossible to correct the situation. Our advice is as under:-
(1) If possible, the entrepreneur himself should take part in court proceedings.
(2) The applicants may be the Company and the Entrepreneur.
(3) On behalf of the Company, an advocate may be hired but the entrepreneur should contest for his own case.
(4) If the advocate does not agree for the above arrangement, in the application by the Company, the entrepreneur may be made respondent and anther application may be prepared and filed with the entrepreneur as the applicant and the Company as the respondent. With such arrangement, there will be no chance of facts getting overlooked or side tracked.
(5) There are many good books on Advocacy. Lot of resources are on the Internet also. (3) We have initiated a case that after 3 years, the order under Sec.138 of NI Act can not be implemented:-
We got an opportunity to implement our contentions that execution under Sec. 138 of NI Act is time barred after 3 years. In a typical case at Indore, the accused entrepreneurs were not traceable for nearly 5 years and then they approached us. We studied and found that no action can be taken against them on account of expiry of limitation period of 3 years. Accordingly an application was made and filed through an advocate. Thus their presence was registered, no bail was required and issue of the warrants were stopped. This is one of the solitary cases in the country and has far reaching consequences. DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 79th Issue dated 6th November �09
(1) Chappal thrown at Supreme Court Judge � He awarded immediate sentence � Fellow Judge objected stating that first Trial is essential:-
In the judgment decided on 21.10.09 in the matter of Leila David vs State of Maharashtra. Altamas Kabir, Judge recorded vide extracts as under:-
(1) Writ Petitions were filed by on Leila David in the Supreme Court of India on 04.08.08. At the outset, the Supreme Court observed that some of the allegations made in the two writ petitions, as well as in the supporting affidavits, appeared prima facie to be per se contempt of the Court. Although, the petitioners were asked to withdraw the allegations made, they refused to do so and submitted that they stood by the said averments and strongly urged the Court to issue process to arrest the 12 Judges of the High Court of Bombay mentioned in prayer (4) to the Writ Petition. In view of the obstinate stand taken by the petitioners, who were appearing in person, the Court had no alternative but to issue notice as to why contempt proceedings should not be issued against them. The matters were thereafter directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat (as His Lordship then was).
(2) The said two writ petitions along with a third Writ Petition filed by one Pavithra Murali and four Special Leave Petitions were listed before the Bench presided over by Dr. Justice Pasayat on 10th September, 2008. While the writ petitioners appeared in person, the respondents were duly represented by counsel and after hearing the petitioners, the Court was of the view that the show cause reply was equally contumacious and some action was required to be taken against the petitioners for contempt of this Court. Accordingly, the Court initiated proceedings for contempt and observed that charges would be framed. Since the writ petitioners were appearing in person, the Court appointed Mr. G.E. Vahanvati (who was then the learned Solicitor General) to act as amicus curiae, in the matter. The matters were directed to be listed on 18th November, 2008, with liberty to the petitioners to file any further response if they wished to by 10th November, 2008. The Special Leave Petitions, which had appeared along with the writ petitions, were de-linked. The writ petitions and the suo motu contempt proceedings were taken up for consideration on 20th March, 2009. As it appears from the record, when the hearing commenced, the writ petitioners disrupted the proceedings by using very offensive, intemperate and abusive language at a high pitch.
(3) The order recorded by Dr. Justice Pasayat indicates that one of the petitioners had gone to the extent of saying that the Judges should be jailed for having initiated proceedings against them and that the Judges should be punished for not taking care of their fundamental rights. One of the writ petitioners, namely, Dr. Sarita Parikh, went to the extent of throwing a footwear (chappal) at the Judges. His Lordship also recorded that all this happened in the presence of the learned Solicitor General of India (later Attorney General for India), two learned Additional Solicitor Generals and a large number of learned counsel and advocates, including the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. Having recorded the said incidents which had occurred within the sight of the Hon'ble Judges and the other persons present in Court, Dr. Justice Pasayat held such behaviour to be contemptuous in the face of the Court. Since the petitioners stood by what they had said and done in Court, His Lordship felt that there was no need to issue any notice and holding them to be guilty of criminal contempt of this Court, inflicted a punishment of three months' simple imprisonment on them. (4) The said course of action did not meet the approval of the other learned Judge, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, who by a separate order of even date, observed that the writ petitioners could not have been punished for contempt without due compliance with the provisions of Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. His Lordship was also of the view that the Court's power under Article 142 was not meant to circumvent the statutory requirements. His Lordship, accordingly, observed as follows:
"Therefore, in this view of the matter, I cannot agree with the view expressed in the order of His Lordship Justice Pasayat, for sending the alleged contemnors to prison for allegedly committing the contempt in the face of the Court without following the mandate of the Statute under Section 14. I, therefore, cannot at all agree with His Lordship's order by which sentence has been imposed. I am of the view that the liberty of those persons cannot be affected in this manner without proceeding against them under Section 14 of the Act. In my opinion Section 14 is in consonance with a person's fundamental right under Article 21." (5) Having regard to the difference of opinion as to the procedure to be adopted before the petitioners could be found guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced, the matter was directed to be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and a direction was given that the contemnors would remain in custody till the matter could be heard by an appropriate Bench. 6. On the same day the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a Bench comprising the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal (as His Lordship then was), the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and directed the matter to be placed before the said Bench on 23.3.2009 at 2.00 p.m. A direction was also given for production of the contemnors before the said Bench on the said date. Pursuant to the said order, the matters were duly listed before the said Bench and were adjourned till 13th April, 2009. In the meantime, the alleged contemnors were enlarged on bail and the application for intervention filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association was allowed. On 15th April, 2009, the matters were released by the aforesaid Bench and were subsequently placed before this Bench.
(1) Chappal was thrown by the lady appellant at one of the Two Judges of the Supreme Court during the open hearing. This fact was known to everyone present in the court room.
(2) The judge who faced the Chappal immediately ordered the sentence of 3 months.
(3) But the fellow Judge objected to such award of sentence stating that first trial was necessary before awarding the sentence.
(4) This is the power of law and procedure of law.
(5) On account of above fundamentals we have been emphasizing past several years that having pleaded all the facts about the counter-claim, none has any authority to comment on it till trial has been completed.
(6) Prima facie since both the claims i.e. bank claim and borrower counter-claim both are at pleading stage and since counter-claim is more than the claim of the bank, there is �No Debt Due� and hence any recovery action has to wait till the trial of the counter-claim is completed in all respect.
(7) It is question of mindset (existing since British Days) which even Supreme Court Judges are prone to what to talk about the DRT Judges. The silver lining is that the defendant litigants (viz. Businessmen and Industrialist Entrepreneurs) are competent enough to change the said mindset despite all sufferings and odds against them. (8) First freedom struggle was against the British Beauracracy. They were driven out. The second freedom struggle is against the Indian Beauracracy (including in banking and judiciary who are aping the British) who can not be driven out but their consciousness needs to be transformed using the tool of law and procedure of law. In democracy only ruler is rule of law and not the individuals. Free citizens are more powerful to use the same more effectively compared with the public servants. DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 78th Issue dated 30th October �09
(1) Indian Judicial System at cross-roads:-
(1) The Govt. and top echelons in the Judicial system have all along been expressing their anxiety on account of huge pendency of 3.5 crore cases in Indian Courts. Recently they have announced fire fighting measures like appointing temporary 700 judges in High Courts and 15,000 judges in lower courts. They also envisage to consider the senior advocates and legal luminaries to be appointed as Judges, fast track courts, 3 shifts working, time bound program for disposal under monitoring of a national agency headed by a Supreme Court Judge etc. As a whole there is all round drive for quick disposal.
(2) All the above measures ignore a basic fundamental that the sole purpose and objective of the Judicial System in a democratic country is �Justice� i.e. �True Decision� and not �Quick Disposal�
(3) The said basic objective can only be achieved if the system is designed keeping in view the capability and capacity of the �Judge� as the centre rather than �Mindless Disposal�
(4) �Judge� is a human being and the requirement for �Justice� can not be bogged down by pressurized disposal norms.
(5) In USA, to improve the �Judicial System�, it was decided to adopt �Management Approach� A body of 150 eminent persons from society from all disciplines was formed. Ten �Core Competency� areas were identified and nation wide program was launched around the said areas with a view that the court managers should have acceptable levels of knowledge, skill and ability. All the agencies worked over a period of 10 years.
(6) The said 10 core competency areas were (a) Purpose and Responsibilities of Courts, (b) Caseflow Management, (c) Leadership, (d) visioning and Strategic Planning, (e) Essential Components, (e) Court Community Communication, (f) Resources, Budget and Finance, (g) Human Resource Management, (h) Education, Training and Development, (i) Information Technology Management.
(7) If one desires to study the above model in depth, internet resources on �National Association for Court Management� may be gone through.
(8) In light of above, the mindless pursuit of quick disposal by the Indian Judicial System will only result in all round chaos and great dissatisfaction among the litigants.
(9) In this context, the alert and vigilant litigants like the Industrialists and Businessmen in DRTs will be the first to impress and force the judiciary to pay attention to other equally important areas apart from �Only Quick Disposal� one.
(2) Bank Documents through RTI:-
One of our clients from Delhi informed that he needed certain documents which were in power and possession of the bank. He submitted his requirement through an application under the RTI Act. The bank authorities refused to provide the said documents on the pretext that the case was subjudiced being under adjudication in DRT. He filed an appeal. The appellate authority asked the bank to provide the copies of all the documents within 15 days. (3) Payment of Interest on Saving Bank Account:-
The RBI vide its circular dated 12.10.09 has decided that the interest on balances in saving bank accounts would be calculated on a daily product basis with effect from April 01, 2010. (4) Pleadings of SA to include Loss and Damages:-
As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mardia Chemicals, the SA is akin to civil suit wherein the borrower can submit his full defence including loss and damages due to wrong doings of the lending banks and financial institutions. Hence in the Securitization Appeals (SAs)prepared by us, we have included the said loss and damages suffered by the borrower. Further in respect of the SA already filed in respect of one of our clients from Rishikesh, we have submitted an amendment to pleadings which includes the loss and damages suffered by the borrower.
DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 77th Issue dated 23rd October �09
(1) Query on Unregistered Firm filing Criminal Complaint:-
We received a query from group of advocates from Mumbai as under:-. (a) Can a Unregistered Partnership firm file a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ? (b) Can a Unregistered Partnership firm file a Criminal Complaint ?
Reply from Our Legal Research Wing Our Legal Research Wing headed by Mr. N.K. Sharma ex-GM (Law) has communicated the following comments on the above queries:- Query: 1. Can an Unregistered Partnership firm file a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 ?
Query: 2. Can an Unregistered Partnership firm file a Criminal Complaint ? Answer :-
Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 has defined the terms �partners�, �a firm� and �firm name�. In law, �a firm� is only a convenient phrase for describing the partners, and the firm has no legal existence apart from the partners. It is neither a legal entity, nor it is a person or is a corporation; it is a collective name of members of a partnership.
A firm is not a separate legal entity. It can not be a member of a company, only its partners can be. The difference between a firm and a company is clearly laid down in the Supreme Court decision in Mrs. Bacha F. Gazder v. CIT, Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 74 (at page 77) paragraph 9 as follows: �Partnership is merely an association of partners for carrying on the business of partnership and in law the firm name is a compendious method of describing such as, however, not the case of a company which stands as a separate juristic entity distinct from the shareholders.� Suit by Firm: A suit by the firm is really a suit by all the partners who were its partners at the time of the accrual of the cause of action and, therefore, all must join in the institution of the suit. Suit for Libel or Slander: The Punjab & Haryana High Court in P.K. Oswal Hosiery Mills v. Tilak Chand AIR 1969 Punj. 150 has held that a firm is merely a collection of partners and cannot bring a suit for libel or slander. Libel or slander against a firm imply a libel or slander of its partners. Such partners themselves or any one may file the suit for libel or slander. In view of aforesaid discussion, the reply to queries is as follows:
1. Neither a Registered nor an Unregistered Partnership firm can file a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. All the partners themselves jointly or any one may file the same.
2. Neither a Registered nor an Unregistered Partnership firm can file a Criminal Complaint. All the partners themselves jointly or any one may file the same. (2) Remedy against Rogue Recovery Agents:-
We received the following news item from Mr. N.K. Sharma:-. Full Story can be found at http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1300662
By - Khyati Dharamsi Despite the hue and cry over the issue of recovery agents and the guidelines suggested by the Reserve Bank of India to regulate their activities, the menace fails to die down.
Not just in cities, but even in rural India there are cases of harassment by recovery agents leading to suicide.
So, in case someone comes in shouting at you, don't panic. Guidelines have been issued to banks and outsourced recovery agents on what to avoid and how to behave. Here's your guide to be treated the right way.
First of all, an agent is not supposed to visit you unless the bank has provided you sufficient notice. Such notice would include reminders via letters or phone calls. Only if these remain unanswered can the bank resort to using recovery agents.
When a bank decides to go in for a recovery agent, it has to inform the borrower of the agent's details, such as name and telephone number. The recent guidelines issued by RBI on recovery agents state: "To ensure due notice and appropriate authorisation, banks should inform the borrower the details of recovery agency firms / companies while forwarding default cases to the recovery agency."
If you do not get information on the recovery agent from the bank, the bank's website is supposed to provide you with the details.
The code of bank's commitment to customers, recently revised by the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India (BCSBI), states: "We will post details of the recovery agency firms/ companies engaged by us on our website. We will also make available on request details of the recovery agency firms/ companies at our branches."
The 79 member banks - which includes almost all the scheduled commercial banks - and future members of BCSBI are supposed to follow this code.
If the bank changes the recovery agent mid-course, the borrower has to be kept updated, says RBI. "Where the recovery agency is changed by the bank during the recovery process, in addition to the bank notifying the borrower of the change, the new agent should carry the notice and the authorisation letter along with his identity card," the guidelines state.
When the recovery agent visits you, he will first have to show an authority letter issued by the bank permitting him to collect dues from you. If you want, you can cross-check details with the agent's identity card. The recovery agent is supposed to visit only between 7 am and 7 pm. The BCSBI code also states: "You would be contacted ordinarily at the place of your choice and in the absence of any specified place, at the place of your residence and if unavailable at your residence, at the place of business/ occupation."
This means the recovery agent is supposed to ask for a place where the borrower is comfortable meeting and only if not can he come at the residence, and if not there, then the office.
During all times or visits for dues collection, decency and decorum should be maintained, the code suggests. "Inappropriate occasions such as bereavement in the family or other calamitous occasions would be avoided for making calls/ visits to collect dues." Under no circumstances is the recovery agent permitted to thrash the borrower and his furniture. If a customer tells the agent that he doesn't want to speak to him, the recovery agent is required to oblige.
"The bank and their agents should not resort to intimidation or harassment of any kind, either verbal or physical, against any person in their debt collection efforts, including acts intended to humiliate publicly or intrude the privacy of the debtors' family members, referees and friends, making threatening and anonymous calls or making false and misleading representations," state the RBI guidelines.
To ensure that you have a proof of the agent's behaviour, RBI has provided for documenting or recording the conversation. "Banks should ensure that there is a tape recording of the content / text of the calls made by recovery agents to the customers, and vice-versa. Banks may take reasonable precaution such as intimating the customer that the conversation is being recorded," the guidelines on engagement of recovery agents state. Recovery agents are known to offer a discount in the repayment amount. Do not succumb to such offers, no matter how tempting, as the agents are not authorised to make any verbal or written promise to a customer. They are just supposed to remind borrowers about non-payment of their dues. Even if the agent offers a receipt for taking a lesser amount, do not settle with him say bankers. If you wish to settle the dues, approach the bank directly, they say. An SBI official told DNA Money, "The recovery agent is not allowed to compromise or manipulate with the customer in terms of money at all."
Moreover, never hand over cash to the agent. Either give a cheque or go to the bank and deposit the money with the loan department. For instructions, read the authorisation letter handed over to the agent. This will tell you what would be acceptable and what would not, as different banks follow different procedures. If you have a dispute with the bank on a certain amount that you have not repaid, inform the recovery agent about it. "Where a grievance/ complaint has been lodged, banks should not forward cases to recovery agencies till they have finally disposed of any grievance/ complaint lodged by the concerned borrower," state the RBI guidelines. If these norms are not followed, the RBI has the right to impose a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period of time.
So, if you have witnessed otherwise, make the same known to the RBI or the consumer forum. The banking ombudsman too can be approached if complaints to the banks have remained unanswered.
DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 76th Issue dated 16th October �09
(1) Reply by the Banks/FIs against Securitization Notice within a week is mandatory and that too with application of mind:-
The above matter has been examined and determined by several courts holding that the reply by the banks and FIs against the Securitization within 7 days is mandatory. Our comments are as under:-
(1) The said notice is a demand notice for enforcement of the Security Interest and it is supposed to have been issued after the verdict by the �Internal Mechanism� (similar to a Court) of the secured creditor.
(2) This is also in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kripack in 1970 according to which when the rights of the borrowers are likely to be affected, the bank officials should act just like a court.
(3) Hon�ble Orissa High Court vide [2009(1) Bankers� Journal 54] quashed the Notice under Securitisation Act on account of the Bank not following the statutory requirement for disposal of the objections of the borrower by a speaking order.
(4) In several judgments the Hon�ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the statutory authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same.
(5) It is not only necessary for the secured creditor to reply to each and every objection/representation of the borrower in terms of Section 13(3A) of the Securitisation Act but such communication must be sent within the stipulated time of one week otherwise it will be deemed that the Bank has accepted the said objections/representations and the said notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act be quashed as held by the Jharkhand High Court vide [2009(1) bankers� Journal 376]
(6) As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mardia Chemicals the secured creditors are duty bound to give the said reply with due application of mind otherwise their said notice under the Securitisation Act will be dismissed in limine.
(7) In view of above, the borrowers should first of all demand all the relevant documents for preparing the said objections/representation. If the secured creditor does not provide the required documents, the said objections/representation should be submitted with the available documents keeping the rights reserved to submit the same further after receipt of the required documents.
(8) If the secured creditor does not reply within the stipulated period of a week, communication be sent to the said creditor laying down the above contentions.
(9) Despite above, if the said creditor proceeds with the action u/s 13(4), the above facts be pointed out in the application u/s 17 before the DRT and the case contested under the prescribed judicial procedure. (2) DRT Bar Association, Jabalpur proceeds on Strike on account of no change in the attitude of the lady Presiding Officer:-
Since there was no change in the attitude of the PO DRT, Jabalpur, the DRT Bar Association went on strike. They also called upon the Chairman, DRAT Allahabad (camp Jabalpur) apprising of the untoward behavior of the said PO. The strike is still continuing.
(3) State and Sub-Divisional Magistrates jointly and severally held liable to pay damages for the unlawful detention of the Petitioner:-
This is just for information of the readers of the Weekly Mails that in a very interesting judgment vide Writ Petition No. 559 of 1997 decided on 31.03 (Gwalior), the said High Court bench at Gwalior vide 2001 vide citation [2001(2) MPLJ 291] in the matter of Durgalal Vijay vs Govt of MP held that on account of unlawful detention of the Petitioner (an Advocate) the State and SDO Magistrates are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay damages quantified at Rs. 25,000=00 to the petitioner. (4) Research conducted by Delhi University showed that most of the Judges in the country are 2nd and 3rd Grade in their educational career:-
It is learnt from a very senior advocate that a Research was conducted by Delhi University which showed that most of the judges in the country are 2nd and 3rd grade in their educational career. The readers of this weekly mail particularly those from Delhi are requested to use their contacts to obtain the said Research.
(5) A very Happy & Prosperous Diwali:-
We wish a very Happy & Prosperous Deepavali to the readers of this Weekly Mail, to our clients and our associates. The light of knowledge with perfection at every stage and at every moment of time only will eradicate the darkness so rampant in various wings of the judicial system for the common man. Let the New Year bring new heights of achievements. DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 75th Issue dated 9th October �09
(1) Order under 138 NI Act - Limitation on Implementation thereof:-
Recently we came across an interesting case in the matter of 138 NI Act. The final judgment and order was issued on 20.12.04. Till date the said order could not be executed. Our view is that the same is barred by limitation. Our view is based on the following considerations:-
(a) As per Sec. 2(j) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the �period of limitation� is prescribed by the Schedule. The �prescribed period� is the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1963. (b) As per Sec. 3 of the said Act, 1963, subject to the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24(inclusive), every application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. (c) In view of above, the prescribed period for the orders under reference will be �Three Years� as per Art. 137 of the Act of 1963. (d) Art. 136 is not applicable as the order under reference is neither a decree nor order of any civil court. (e) Art. 135 is not applicable as the order under reference is not a decree granting a mandatory injunction. (f) Art. 118 to Art. 134 are not applicable at all. (g) The First and Second Divisions of the Schedule covering Art. 1 to Art. 117 are not applicable at all. (h) There is no special provision relating to limitation having any bearing on the orders under reference either in the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or any other enactments. (i) Hence in view of above, the implementation of the orders under reference has become already barred with effect from 19.12.07 on account of 3 years being over on this date. (j) A relevant judgment of the Supreme Court of India was delivered on 10th Feb. 2009 vide copy enclosed in the matter of Shakuntala Devi & Ors. Vs Chamru Mahto & Anr. vide citations 2009 AIR(SCW) 1896. The highlights are as under:- �It relates to matter of limitation in Criminal Law � Extract from Head Note from AIOL - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 145(6) & 145(4) � application for implementation of order u/s 145(4), since no period of limitation is prescribed, same ought to have been filed within 3 years from the date of the order � final order u/s 145 was passed on 7.10.94, application for implementation was filed on 12.11.97, which held was beyond period of limitation.� (k) We invite comments on the above from the readers of this weekly mail. (2) Important Aspects of Law of Limitation:-
Law of Limitation is a very important branch of law. Its historical and important aspects are submitted below:-
(a) There is a Latin maxim �interest repubdicae utsit finish litium� means �in the interest of the Society, there has to be some end to litigation�.
(b) In pursuit of the above objective, Legislation has been passed from time to time setting the time limit to actions that can be competently pursued in the law.
(c) Under the Hindu Jurisprudence, there was only law of prescription and no law of limitation as such. Hence our thinking due to legacy negates limitation.
(d) In England before James Statutes of 1523 there was no specific law of Limitation.
(e) In India the first attempt to introduce a uniform of Law of Limitation was made in 1859. Subsequently based on court decisions, several amendments were made in 1862, 1871 and 1877.
(f) Finally in order to consolidate and amend the law of limitation for suits, appeals and applications, the act was amended in 1908.
(g) The statute of Limitation is a statute of repose, peace and justice. It is one of repose as it extinguishes stale demands and quiets titles. Controversies are limited to fixed period of time lest they should become immortal while men are mortal. It secures peace as it ensures security of rights. It secures justice as by lapse of time evidence in support of rights may be destroyed.
(h) In free India, the Act was finally amended in 1963 on the basis of recommendations of 3rd Law Commission.
(i) In England originally the maximum limitation for recovery of state dues was 60 years which successively was brought down to 30, 12 and now 6 years (vide 1980 act) on account of rapidly changing socio-economic conditions.
(j) In India, the said maximum continued to be 12 years but in 1963 a retrograde step was taken when it could be extended by the courts under certain conditions. Even Sec. 48 of CPC was repealed, according to which execution was barred beyond 12 years. Even for the said 12 years, one had to approach to the court every 3 years. The retrograde step was that one may approach at any time during 12 years. Thus in England, the period of 60 years was brought down to 6 years, whereas in India, the said limit of 12 years could even be extended. On one hand the Indian courts are heavily overloaded, the effect of such amendments have been to overload the courts further.
(k) The general period of limitation since 1908 has been 3 years. On account of the said retrograde steps, the period could be extended in certain cases. On account of all such steps, the legacy in India was allowed to be continued in a modified form.
(l) Our general thinking is that on account of limitation, the truth may be shut. However the thinking in England has been progressive and pragmatic vide House of Lords in Amphill Peerage case � (1977) AC 547 � Society considers that without a statutory time limit for litigation, truth may be bought at too high a price, that truth bought at such expense is the negative of justice. DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 74th Issue dated 2nd October �09
(1) Laudable Role of DRT Bar Association, Jabalpur:-
The DRT Bar Association is very active and dynamic. Its members have very good unity. They fight for the common cause. Recently a lady PO was posted. The said Association faced the following problems, passed a resolution and accordingly submitted the same to the said PO:-
(a) The members of the Association found that the behaviour of the said PO was not good.
(b) The said PO was not giving proper opportunity for the hearing.
(c) The said PO was not giving reasoned judgments and orders.
(d) If any submission was made in Hindi, the said PO was demanding its English version.
(e) Order sheets contained proceedings particularly which are hand written are in very short form and mostly are not clear.
(f) The written arguments submitted are not taken on record. (g) The citations submitted are not discussed in the orders.
(h) Orders are not passed on interim applications and hence the parties are deprived of remedies of appeal, if needed.
(i) If the advocate is busy in other courts like High Court, adverse orders are passed and opportunity is not given for him to submit his arguments subsequently.
(j) Many a times the conduct and tone of the PO is harsh, irritating, short tempered and high pitched.
(k) The said Association discussed all the above matters and passed a resolution in its general body meeting. (l) Accordingly a resolution was passed and submitted in Hindi to the said PO.
(m) The copies were sent to High Court, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Law.
(n) Above action by the Association is expected to have salutary effect on the PO
Our Comments:- (1) The above instance shows the power of Constitution of India unfolding through democratic way of life. The British days of �My Lord� are over. The Judge is just like any other Public Servant whose goal and duty is and should be Justice and Justice only. He himself first should follow the �Principles of Natural Justice� (2) It is interesting to note that Viscount Haldane in the year 1915 in �Local Government vs Arlidge [(1915) A.C. 120 (138) H.L.] announced the following essential requirements of a judicial decision:-
� . .. . those whose duty it is to decide must act judicially. They must deal with the question referred to them without bias and they must give to each of the parties the opportunity of adequately presenting the case made. The decision must come to the spirit and with the sense of responsibility of a tribunal whose duty is to mete out justice.� (3) Greer L. Judge put it more tersely in Errington vs Minister of Health [(1935) 1 K.B. 249 (268)] as under:-
� A judge must �hear both sides and must not hear one side in the absence of the other�
(4) Lord Hewart has made the following celebrated observations in R. vs Sussex Justices [ (1924) 1 K.B. 256 (259)] :-
� It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifest and undoubtedly be seen to be done�
(2) An invigorating meeting with Dr. Poonia, Editor of �Lost Justice�:-
Mr. Ram Kishan met Dr. N.S. Poonia, Founder & Editor of a quarterly Journal �Lost Justice� published from Indore since 2006. Dr. Poonia is a crusader and of the strong conviction that �Now common citizen needs to learn basics of law for self and for the nation.�
The following articles in the very first issue of the said Journal are interesting:-
(a) Fair Criticism. Our Attitudes towards Criticism are a Subject of Criticism.
(b) Criminal Law Criminalized.
(c) Law of Crime now be Repealed. No Law can survive which invokes only against Poor and Powerless.
The said Journal specifically mentions � �Lost Justice is for kind attention of CJI, CJs and Companion Judges� Dr. Poonia discussed the various issues with Justice Krishna Iyer, Former Judge Supreme Court who commented � �This is revolution which the country needed long back� The contacts of Dr. Poonia are M � 9926528245 and E-mail � drdrpoonia@yahoo.co.in (3) This issue is dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi, Father of Nation:-
When shall we have the Justice?
DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 73rd Issue dated 25th September �09
(1) Evolving New Bankruptcy Code in India for the corporate sector:-
The following comments are based on the news item, interactions and debate published respectively in 17.09.09, 19.09.09 and 22.09.09 issues of the Economic Times, Mumbai :-
(a) The proposed new corporate bankruptcy code which seeks to efficiently rescue financially distressed companies is facing hurdles from the finance ministry which does not want to dilute lenders� rights to take possession of the defaulting borrower�s assets in order to facilitate the introduction of the new bankruptcy code.
(b) The new code provides for a reasonable stand-still period during which lenders can not attempt to take possession of the defaulting borrower�s assets.
(c) The idea is to give reasonable time to a distressed company to revive before the court decided to liquidate date it pay off the liabilities by selling its assets.
(d) The above is not in sync with the Securitisation Act which is known for helping lenders to recover their loans from the defaulters. The bankers feel that diluting their this right can seriously affect credit offtake.
(e) Insolvency experts have a different view. �In practice, banks put a lot of pressure on the borrower during the 60 days period after demanding payment, which distracts him form focusing on restructuring the company. Besides, the stand-still period is not an automatic stay on creditor action as is the case now. This will commence only on the order of the court, after which the debtor can not sell or transfer the asset of the company. There are other safeguards to protect the interests of the creditors�
(f) Under the existing law SICA, creditors do not have such safeguards. Once distressed companies make a reference to the BIFR, it triggers an automatic stay on creditor action for many years.
(g) The Finance Minister recently said the government will bring the new bankruptcy code once the Parliament passes the Companies Bill.
(h) It is incidentally pointed out that the SICA was conceptualized keeping in view Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. The US is regarded as one of the most �debtor friendly� regimes, with a good record of facilitating rehabilitation and turnaround of distressed business. The key objectives under this law are the preservation of a company and its going concern value (not its current ownership) as it seeks to maximize the value of debtor�s estate for the benefits of the creditors, with employees for early completion the re-organization. This is markedly different from how SICA has operated. While the US system allows retention of existing management and enables it to take a lead in formulation of a rehabilitation plan, the company usually emerges out of bankruptcy with a completely revamped ownership and vastly different stakeholders rights. A short standstill period to assess position and work out the restructuring, the availability of debtor in possession financing, and an ability to �cram down� a plan on dissenting creditors are other key features which have helped the US system relatively more effective and quicker. (2) Govt aims to cut litigation time from 15 years to one:-
The above news item has appeared at pg 2 of 24.09.09 issue of the Economic Times, Mumbai. Our comments are as under:-
(a) It is reported that there are 2.75 crores cases pending in the country. Govt. wants to cut \down time first from 15 years to 3 years and then to one year and finally to 6months.
(b) First the Govt. desires to set up new 5000 courts. (c) Retired Judges will be hired to work in 3 shifts.
(d) There will be case management technology. �Everything will be streamlined� (e) Besides training the trial court judges, Govt will provide with laptops.
(i) Such political statements have been made several times in past but there has been no improvements.
(ii) Simply increasing the courts and hiring retired judges to work in 3 shifts will not have much impact. Significant improvements can only be made by adopting Modern Management Techniques and Latest Technology about which there is no statement leave alone any action plan.
(iii) 15000 laptops costing Rs. 40 crores were provided to all judges on 9th July 2007 with 3 months training. Not a single laptops is seen in court room with the judges. Now the Govt. is again talking to provide laptops to the judges.
(iv) Many of the judges and advocates are using latest mobile, latest cars, latest TVs, latest dress materials but they don�t have desire to use latest computers and court room technologies which are being used in developed countries past 25 years. (v) We have drafted world class constitution and adopted the same in 1950. But we did not bother to create world class courts, world class advocates and world class judges. (vi) While as a litigants, we can not do anything on the above, we can become world class litigants. If it is done, it will force the judges and opposite side advocate to improve. This has been our aim in working with all our clients. They also have been responding well. (3) Application (misnamed as Appeal) u/s 17 of Securitisation Act � Practical Problems of Borrowers in DRTs :-
Recently one of our clients from Chennai faced a serious problem which in brief was as under:-
(a) The Bank invoked Sec. 13(4) of the Securitisation Act 2002 and the Borrower filed his application u/s 17 of the Act 2002.
(b) The said application i.e. SA was partly decided in favour of the Borrower who then filed an appeal to DRAT u/s 18 of the said Act.
(c) The said Appeal is pending since there is no Chairperson in DRAT Chennai.
(d) In the meantime, the Bank again initiated action under Sec. 13(4) and issued Possession Notice for the properties for which the case was already decided in favour of the Borrower.
(e) The borrower pointed out such illegal action of the Bank to DRT. The DRT declined to interfere stating that since the matter was already decided, nothing was possible at the end of the DRT and more so when the Appeal is pending in DRAT.
(f) The borrower was advised by his local counsel to file another SA which was duly filed on 4.9.09. (g) The PO decided the said SA on 18.9.09 and proceeded on leave wef 19.9.09.
We studied and analyzed the said order and our observations are as under:-
(h) SA is akin to a civil suit as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mardia Chemicals.
(i) The procedure for trial of a civil suit is laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Swaranlata.
(j) The said law declared by the SC were openly violated by the DRT as the facts were not judicially determined and hurried trial was conducted. The said order has numerous errors and mistakes apparent on face of records. It also shows misconceptions of facts and law on part of the PO DRT.
(k) Under the above facts and circumstances, the most appropriate remedy is Review of the said order. (l) Since there was no PO in DRT as well as no Chairperson in DRAT, we advised the borrower to first file Review in DRT and also file a writ petition in High Court requesting for interim stay till the Review is decided. (m) The local counsels are of the view that noting will be achieved by Review and the borrower should approach High Court by filing a writ petition.
(n) The logic behind our proposal is that first we must exhaust all possible remedies in the lower courts instead of rushing to the High Court. This approach will result in having the performance and working of the trial court recorded e.g. first in form of the said order dated 18.9.09 and then the order against the proposed Review. Depending on the content of the order on Review, one may decide for going in for appeal or change in court.
(o) It is needless to mention that until and unless the material facts are judicially determined, the case should not be allowed to be handled by the higher courts. Further as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Saw Mills, DRT has all powers to decide the matter even if the sale has been accomplished.
(p) By our proposed approach the matter remains with the lower courts until and unless the material facts are judicially determined. By going slow, there is possibility of having favourable orders from DRT or even DRAT as some Chairperson may be appointed. (q) Any approach other than above has a risk. The High Court may be misled by the undetermined facts in the said order dated 18.9.09 and verdict if any may become difficult to be set right. One will not have any chance of correction through trial by lower courts. The only option will be to approach the Supreme Court which again may be misled by the undetermined facts and new verdict of the High Court. Further such risky exercise will be more expensive and even may involve some directives for deposits which may further complicate the matter creating new handicaps for the lower courts.
(r) Most of our clients who are getting success in bank litigations are those who have been going very thorough in lower courts and availing all possibilities in these courts only instead of jumping to higher courts. They all have the advantage of �No Debt Due� situation on account of counter-claims or damage suits. They get further advantages due to well established procedure of trials to determine the facts judicially which is not at all possible in higher courts. By going slow has another advantage of getting new favourable judgments as the matter pertaining to the Securitisation Act is being contested most vigorously. Last year itself, there were more than 400 judgments and interestingly most important judgments appeared as late as 16.7.09, 31.7.09 and 08.09.09. It is needless to mention that cost of a competent and experienced trial lawyer is much less than that in High Court and Supreme Court. As a whole until and unless, all the material facts have been judicially determined by the established process of trial, it would be risky, dangerous and costly to approach to higher courts particularly in developing enactments like Securitisation Act more so when the environment is against the borrowers. DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 72nd Issue dated 18th September �09
(c) It is presumed that exhaustive appeal has been filed u/s 17 of the said Act.
(d) Under the above facts and circumstances, the basis of the arguments will be as under:-
(3) A very good judgment of SC on OTS
On 31.07.09, the Supreme Court has delivered a very good judgment on OTS vide Sardar Associates vs Punjab & Sind Bank declaring that RBI Guidelines including those on OTS are binding on the banks and financial institutions.
DRT Solutions Weekly Mail � 71st Issue dated 11th September �09
(1) Daily Supreme Court Judgments � free of cost � Full download:-
With effect from 1st September �09, daily Supreme Court Judgments � No Registration � No Fees � Bookish view / Print out � Download facility, all these available from the following web site:-
www.stpl-india.in (2) Lack of Execution and Mismanagement in Indian Judicial System with particular reference to DRT Litigations:-
Many of our clients i.e. DRT Litigants raise numerous queries during discussions and mail exchanges on the topic mentioned above. Our comments and observations are as under:-
(a) The origin of DRTs goes back to 1984 when the RBI published the report of Tiwari Committee titled �Report of the Committee to examine the Legal and other difficulties faced by the Banks and Financial Institutions in Rehabilitation of Sick Industrial undertakings and suggest Remedial Measures including change in the Law�
(b) The said Committee in the said Report at Page 77 stated that �These Tribunals should be manned by persons having specialized knowledge in the functioning of the banks, financial institutions and industry. Till date even after 25 years, there is no effort for having any trained advocates and judges having the desired specialized knowledge. This is the first clear-cut lack of execution on part of the Govt and has resulted in mismanagement in the DRTs.
(c) Since Roman days (754 BC i.e. more than 2700 years ago), the Principles of Natural Justice were evolved for the Courts. It is pathetic to see that many of the Judges in civil courts, DRTs, DRATs and higher courts do not still abide by the said Principles of Natural Justice. This is another part of lack of execution and hence mismanagement in the Indian Judicial System.
(d) The principles of Modern Management and its practice evolved during the commencement of mass production of automobiles in the beginning of 20th century. All other fields including Judiciary in USA adopted the same later on around 1950. The computerization of court judgments commenced in USA in 1974. Our Supreme Court judges visited US several times but full scale computerization in our country has not yet stared. On 9th July 2007, laptops (costing Rs. 40 crores) were distributed to 15,000 judges in the country with 3 months training but till date even after 2 years, the said computers are not seen in the court rooms. Thus this is again total lack of execution and failure of supervision and management in our judiciary.
(e) The judges in DRTs were appointed through the stream of ADJ and or retired DJ. These judges spent their life in civil courts following procedures laid down in CPC and CrPC. They did not have any experience in DRT Procedures based on principles of natural justice. Being from the stream of law, they did not understand banking, finance and industry. There is no training system. All these has resulted in the same old type of adjudication in civil courts. Modern court management and technology has not yet been introduced in DRTs. Its just like old wine in new bottles and hence the results of the bank litigations in DRTs are not satisfactory. (f) The system favors and is biased towards banks and FIs. It is replica of British days when you can not fight against the Govt.
(g) The Ministry of Finance (Banking Div.) plays an important role in the appointment of judges in DRTs. The salary and expenses of the DRTs and Judges are handled by the Ministry of Finance (Banking Div.) There are regular meetings of the judges of the DRTs with the officials of the said Banking Div. Such state of affairs is highly against the equity and independence of judiciary resulting into mismanagement in DRTs.
(h) When the DRTs commenced, only young advocates without any court experience started practicing in DRTs. Such advocates are now maximum in numbers in DRTs. Hence virtually there is no proper trial and in the name of expeditious disposal, majority of cases are being decided only in the favour of banks. (i) In our country there is no system of training of advocates, judges and litigants in relevant spheres of constitution, administrative law and SC judgments. Otherwise despite Swaranlata of 1969, still the trials are not being conducted properly. There is virtually no impact of Constitution, Administrative Law and Bank Nationalization read with Kripak both of 1970 on the beauracracy of bank officials. The said officials even don�t bother about the RBI Guidelines of 1976 and thereafter. All these eloquently speak about total lack of execution and management in the concerned beauracracy. (j) Its only on account of few SC judgments like that in the matter of Mardia Chemicals (2004), Indian overseas Bank vs Ashok Saw Mills (16.07.09) and very recently (i.e. 08.09.09) Commissioner of Central Excise vs Uni Product (I) Ltd. which will have a great impact on the DRT trials.
(k) Within next few years, the DRT trials will undergo a vast improvements mainly due to constant efforts of our clients for proper adjudication of their counter-claims or damage suits. Hence the DRT litigants are advised first to have perfect pleadings and then to have perfect trials on every date based on our guidance and advice. Going slow and steady without accepting any verdict which has slightest element of injustice will alone enable such litigants to win their bank litigations.
(l) The next item in this weekly mail confirms that we are very poor in execution and management on account of mismanaged beauracracy including the judiciary.
(3 India slips to 133rd position among 188 countries as against top position of China in the ease of doing business
This refers to news item titled �Doing business still not easy in India� at page 9 of the 10th Sept �09 issue of �The Economic Times� which is based on World Bank - IFC Index and is self explanatory. DRT Legal Solutions Attorneys at Law of Torts, Injury and IPR Claims