Supreme Court Surprised Over DRT Adjourning Case Saying Its Officers Are Busy With Preparing Statements For Finance Ministry

The Supreme Court today (September 17) expressed surprise over Vishakhapatnam Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) staff being occupied with preparing statements for the Finance Ministry.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was informed that the DRT on September 12, 2024 adjourned a securitization application which has been reserved for orders stating that all the staff is busy in preparing a statement called by the Finance Ministry.

The Court directed the Presiding Officer of the DRT Vishakhapatnam to file a report in a sealed cover by September 30, 2024 detailing the Finance Ministry's requirements and the type of work the tribunal's staff had been carrying out in response.

“We are surprised to note that the members of the staff of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Visakhapatnam are busy in preparing the statement called for by the Finance Ministry. We direct learned member of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Visakhapatnam to file a report in sealed cover giving details of the requirements of Finance Ministry and the kind of work which is being carried out by the staff of the Tribunal for meeting the requirements of the Finance Ministry. Copies of the communications if any received from the Finance Ministry shall also be placed on record”, the Court stated in the order.

The Court was hearing an SLP challenging the adjournment of a securitization application pending before the tribunal due to a lawyers' strike. The Court has issued a contempt notice against the Vishakhapatnam Bar Association for abstaining from court work, leading to the non-functioning of the DRT. The Bar Association has since filed an affidavit in response.

A judicial member of DRT Chandigarh today attempted to intervene in the matter, seeking to tell the court the “real reason” for the strike. However, Justice Abhay Oka said that the court is not concerned with that, and questioned how a judicial member of the DRT could file such an application.

Justice Oka remarked, “You are judicial member of DRT, how can you appear by way of intervention? What kind of application you have filed? Unfortunate that you are doing this.”

Justice Oka further noted that the applicant was appearing in person despite having engaged an Advocate of Record (AOR). The applicant explained that he took the assistance of an AOR to file the application.

Justice Oka responded, “You are a sessions judge. The minimum you are expected to know is that once a party is represented by advocate unless the advocate is discharged the party in person cannot appear. You say you are a retired District Judge.”

Despite the court's suggestion to withdraw the application, the applicant insisted on having it decided. Ultimately, the intervention application was dismissed as “completely misconceived.”

In the affidavit filed by the Vishakhapatnam Bar Association, it undertook not to encourage or call for any future boycott.

Not satisfied with the affidavit, Justice Oka said that the Bar Association must pass a resolution stating unequivocally that it would never call for lawyers to abstain from work under any circumstances, either before courts or tribunals. The court granted the Association time until September 30, 2024, to file a proper resolution and submit an affidavit reflecting the same.

Justice Oka shared his experience dealing with bar boycotts in Maharashtra, where in one instance the court transferred all pending cases to another functioning courts.

He lamented that despite Supreme Court rulings prohibiting lawyers' boycotts, such practices continued, noting that his bench had issued notices to over six bar associations across India.

“In a lighter vein, I have dealt with such matters in Maharashtra where people went on 3 months, 8 months boycott. We told the bar association that we will transfer all pending cases in that Court to another court which was functioning. This is the only way to deal with these boycotts. After two judgements of this court still this continues. Even this bench we have issued notice to over six bar associations all over India.”

The Supreme Court has contempt notices to multiple bar associations across the country for resorting to strikes. In April 2023, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to constitute grievance redressal cells through which the advocates can raise their issues without resorting to strikes.

Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11029/2024

Case Title – Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.