'Headless, Defunct Without Qualified Incumbents': Delhi High Court Expresses Dismay Over Delay In Filling Up DRT Vacancies

The Delhi High Court recently condemned the delay by the Central Government in appointing Presiding officers to Debt Recovery Tribunals across the country, and sought the Department's response in this regard within a week. 

A Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh remarked as such:

"...the real problem being faced by the DRTs today is that they are headless and more or less defunct without qualified and competent incumbents."

The Bench was hearing a plea raising the issue of delay in disposal of high-value recovery cases pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunals. In one of the earlier hearings in the matter, the Court had directed the respondents to constitute a Committee to examine this situation.

Accordingly, an affidavit was filed disclosing that a Committee chaired by Justice Tarun Kumar Kaushal has been constituted.

The said Committee, after examining the issue, put forward certain recommendations, the first one being that the high-value recovery cases of Rs.100 Crores or more should be filed through electronic mode. This would ease the process of electronic transmission of records of all such cases to the concerned authorities and essentially cut short the delays in service of copies, thereby nipping in the bud the disputes regarding the service of copies, the Committee suggested. 

The affidavit also mentioned that advisories were being issued that high-value recovery cases should not be adjourned for more than a week. Similarly, they proposed to call for reports from the DRTs regarding such matters. 

The Court found that if seriously implemented, the recommendations made by the Committee would help in the early disposal of high-value recovery cases to some extent. 

However, it was brought to the attention of the Bench that three DRTs were functioning without Presiding Officers for more than 6 months.

Likewise, the Court noticed that despite the Supreme Court directing for lawyers with 10 years standing or more being qualified to offer their candidature for appointment to the DRT, the respondent had till date not implemented the said decision.

"It appears to us that either the respondents are completely unmindful of the seriousness of the problem, or despite being aware of the problem, are deliberately and consciously ensuring that DRTs do not function," the Court stated.

It was also observed that the Debt Recovery Tribunals were constituted to expedite recovery of debts owed to banks and financial institutions since monies held by banks and financial institutions are public monies. Thus, the failure on the part of the respondent to make appointments to fill up the vacancies in the DRTs is causing serious prejudice to a larger public interest.

"We are completely dismayed and are also not able to understand as to how the respondent can be so unconcerned about the seriousness of the problem. It is not fathomable as to why the respondents are turning a deaf ear to the appeals made not only by banks and financial institutions, but also orders passed by us calling upon the respondent to discharge its duty of appointing officers to fill up the vacancies in the DRTs," it said.

As such, the respondents were directed to file a better affidavit on the aspect of filling up vacancies in the DRTs, within a week. The Court also called for the appearance of the Secretary of Department of Financial Services during the next hearing to answer the queries of the Court.

The matter has been listed on 25th August for further hearing.

Case Title: Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Secretary, Department of Financial Services & Ors. 

Click here to download Order