Amir Hussain And Ors vs Canara Bank

P.K. Bhasin, J

On 9th May, 2017 a Seven-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order holding a sitting Judge of a High Court guilty of commission of contempt of Supreme Court. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India started his judgment with the following observations:-

"The task at our hands is unpleasant. It concerns actions of a Judge of a High Court. The instant proceedings pertain to alleged actions of criminal contempt, committed by Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan. The initiation of the present proceedings suo-motu, is unfortunate. In case this Court has to take the next step, leading to his conviction and sentencing, the Court would have undoubtedly travelled into virgin territory. This has never happened. This should never happen. But then, in the process of administration of justice, the individual's identity, is clearly inconsequential. This Court is tasked to evaluate the merits of controversies placed before it, based on the facts of the case. It is expected to record its conclusions, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will."

In my capacity as the Chairperson of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (DRAT) I am also finding myself in such an unfortunate situation where a subordinate staff attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III in Delhi (DRT) and who works under the general superintendence of its Presiding Officer, who in turn performs quasi-judicial functions under the general superintendence and overall control of the Chairperson of DRAT, has behaved in such a manner while functioning as the Recovery Officer of DRT which clearly suggests that he considers himself to be above all, even the DRAT, and has expressed his displeasure against this Appellate Tribunal giving certain directions to him. Those directions were given by me while entertaining some petitions under Section 17A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act) filed by some litigants appearing before the concerned Recovery Officer and were feeling aggrieved by his high handedness and arbitrary way of handling recovery proceedings initiated on receipt of Recovery Certificates from the Presiding Officer of the DRT to which he (Recovery Officer concerned) stands attached by virtue of Section 7 of the RDDBFI Act. The aggrieved litigants had moved this Tribunal with a request to invoke the general power of superintendence and control over the DRTs and to withdraw their cases from this particular Recovery Officer and transfer to any other Recovery Officer attached to any of the any of the other DRTs under this DRAT's jurisdiction.

The simple directions which were being given to the Recovery Officer were requiring him to produce the records of the cases which were being sought to be got withdrawn from him and transferred to another Recovery Officer.

The Recovery Officer concerned, whose conduct and alleged misuse of the authority conferred upon him under the law for effecting recoveries of Banks' dues found by his Presiding Officer to be recoverable from the defaulting borrowers'/guarantors/mortgagors and whose audacity to disobey the commands of this Tribunal, which is the second Appellate Authority against the orders of the Recovery Officers, is one Mr. Inderjeet Manchanda attached to DRT-III, Delhi who was otherwise working with a Bank but had sought his transfer to DRT on deputation to perform the duties of Recovery Officer for the recoveries of moneys of Banks as well as other Financial Institutions.

This Tribunal has been receiving transfer petitions and whenever it was felt that records of the Recovery Officers needed to be perused to find out whether there was any substance in the allegations being levelled against them to get the recovery proceedings transferred and records were being made available by the Recovery Officers concerned. However, when the above named Recovery Officer joined the DRT in deputation he seems to have gathered the impression that in the field of recoveries of Banks' moneys under the Recovery Certificates issued by the Presiding Officers of DRTs he (Mr. Manchanda) was the supreme authority his records were not amenable to any scrutiny by any authority including this Appellate Tribunal, which is the second appellate forum under the RDDBFI Act as far as orders of Recovery Officers are concerned as first appeal lies before their own Presiding Officers.

Mr. Inderjeet Manchanda, after joining DRT on deputation, does not appear to have digested the idea that all his actions are amenable to judicial scrutiny by his Appellate Authorities and his records can be summoned also in appeals etc. In one of the transfer petitions moved before this Tribunal on 22.3.2017 (registered as Misc. Application No. 236/2017, Seema Dravid v. Canara Bank, by some aggrieved litigant I had required the said Recovery Officer to make available to this Tribunal the file/record of that case. In that case one of the grievances against Mr. Manchanda was that even though his predecessor Recovery Officer had way back on 13.10.2015 withdrawn the attachment of one property going to be sold when the objections had been submitted against the auction but after that Recovery Officer demitted office and Mr. Inderjeet Manchanda took over he abruptly throwing all the norms to winds recalled the said order dated 13.10.2015 of his predecessor 15.3.2017. The file the Recovery Officer was accordingly sent for. No doubt there was an apparent compliance of that direction by the said Recovery Officer by sending the records to this Tribunal but the fact which was revealed by the Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the matter after the case file had been received by this Tribunal shows that the said Recovery Officer had never intended to part with his record for the perusal of this Tribunal and wanted to continue to proceed with the matter even in the absence of the record of the case. What he did was to prepare a new file and continued proceeding in the matter even when this Tribunal wanted to peruse his records in order to find out whether the grievance of the litigant who had filed transfer petition was justified or not. The new file also was then summoned and was made available by the Recovery Officer and which showed that he had passed an order requiring the Certificate Debtors to show cause as to why they be not arrested, after noticing that even though DRAT had been moved against some earlier order but no stay of proceedings had been granted by this Tribunal. Once records had been sent for by this Tribunal for deciding transfer petition the Recovery Officer ought to have refrained from going ahead with the matter by preparing a fresh file shows that sending of the case file by him while simultaneously preparing separate record of proceedings was no compliance of the direction of this Tribunal requiring him to send his file to this Tribunal.

The said action of Mr. Manchanda, prima facie, shows that actually he disobeyed the direction of this Tribunal requiring him to send the case records to this Tribunal since he while forwarding the file to this Tribunal simultaneously prepared another file and continued to proceed with the matter. That was an open challenge to the authority of the appellate Tribunal by the lowest member in the hierarchy of authorities set up under the RDDBFI Act.

That is not the end of the expressions of resentment of Mr. Manchanda against the orders given to him by this Appellate Tribunal. He once again defied the directions of this Tribunal while this Tribunal was still seized of the other matter referred to above. That defiance expressed by Mr. Manchanda, this time is with 'anger' and he has also assumed the role of a 'guide' for this Appellate Tribunal and that is demonstrated in another transfer petition against Mr. Manchanda registered here as Miscellaneous Application No. 443/2017, Amir Khan v. Canara Bank, moved by some other litigant who claimed in his transfer petition that he was feeling hurt by his highhandedness in ensuring that he is coerced to such an extent that he abandons his legal battle to save his property from being illegally sold by the said Recovery Officer. One of his grievances is that when submissions were being advanced before the Recovery Officer on his objections against the threatened auction of his wife's property which was not the mortgaged property of the case the Recovery Officer Mr. Manchanda had no business to comment during one of the proceedings before him that 'Bakre Ki Maan Kab Tak Khair Manayegi'. These utterances of the Recovery Officer, according to the applicant Amir Hussain showed the pre-determined mind of the Recovery Officer to somehow sell the property which the applicant/objector was claiming to be not mortgaged property and so could not be sold as a mortgaged property.

In view of these utterances of Mr. Inderjeet Manchanda during the course of hearing of the matter and some other allegations levelled against him in the transfer petition by Amir Hussain this time I had required the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-III to obtain the comments of the Recovery Officer and to forward the same to this Tribunal alongwith the recovery file. The Recovery Officer gave his response in writing and his Presiding Officer forwarded his comments to this Tribunal and his comments appear to have been forwarded by the learned Presiding without going through its contents and some of the contents were on the face of it highly contemptuous. After dealing with the allegations levelled against him the Recovery Officer at the end of his report wrote as under:

"While concluding my comments, I think it appropriate to add that:

(i) The undersigned is discharging my duties diligently, honestly, sincerely by following the provisions prescribed under the Act/Rules;

(ii) Personal allegations have been levelled in the subject MA just to put pressure, demotivate and defame me as there are number of instances where Counsels appearing for CDs are feeling heat due to expeditious disposal of objections and proceeding under Section 25(aa) of RDB Act.

(iii) CDs or their Counsels have invented another way of delaying the matter by filing false and frivolous MAs under Section 17A before Hon'ble DRAT. They have been successful in getting the proceedings stayed as the concerned RO cannot proceed in the matter due to non-availability of concerned files. There are number of matters where similar MAs have been filed and recovery proceedings in those matters are stand-still and CDs are enjoying at the cost of public money. It is requested that the files may be called only in exceptional circumstances."

These submissions of the Recovery Officer clearly convey to this Tribunal his extreme anger because of this Tribunal time and again summoning his files which according to him are an impediment in the discharge of his duties. Sending the case file with these expressions of dissatisfaction against the Chairperson of DRAT by Mr. Manchanda also amounts to disobedience of the direction of this Tribunal requiring him to send the case file to this Tribunal and not only that these expressions are highly contemptuous. The Recovery Officer had no business to say that lawyers were filing frivolous petitions for transfer of cases to another Recovery Officer and further that this Tribunal was also extending indulgence to litigants/defaulters by summoning case files and due to non availability of records recoveries get stalled.

Without observing anything further I am of the view that this Recovery Officer needs to be dealt with suitably as well as sternly for disobeying the directions of this Tribunal and using contemptuous language against this Tribunal while showing his disobedience. However, before passing any orders against him I think it appropriate to give him an opportunity to say whatever he has to say regarding the orders to be passed against him for disobeying the orders of this Tribunal and using contemptuous language in his report dated 5.6.2017 submitted in this matter. He can submit his response in writing and appearing in person before this Tribunal on 31.7.2017. Till further orders, his matters will be dealt with the other Recovery Officer attached to DRT-III and not by him so that he does not cause any further damage. I am not getting any pleasure in passing this direction but it appears to be in the best interest of the institution. Mr. Inderjeet Manchanda be conveyed this order through the Presiding Officer immediately through email/fax.