AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Appeal bearing No.58/2025 arising out of OA No.668/2024 stated to be pending before DRT-III, Chandigarh was ordered to be dismissed in default vide order dated 16.09.2025. The present application is filed for restoration of the said appeal. It is stated in the application that the counsel for the appellant could not appear before this Tribunal as he had met with an accident on 03.09.2025 which necessitated surgical intervention on the right hand rendering him medically indisposed. It is further submitted that the absence was neither intentional nor deliberate.
After considering all facts, the application is allowed and the present Appeal bearing No.58/2025 is restored to its original number. The application stands disposed of.
Appeal No.58/2025
Sh. Sanjeev Pathak, Advocate for the appellant advanced arguments.
The appellant IDFC First Bank Limited filed O.A. No.668/2024 titled as IDFC First Bank Limited V. Anupam Shawls & others which was decided vide the impugned order dated 15.02.2025 by DRT-III, Chandigarh and O.A. was ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution. DRT in the impugned order dated 15.02.2025 has made the following observations:-
In the day to day working, it came before this Tribunal that Banks and FIs crushes the small borrowers and shake hands with the borrowers who have availed credit facilities of Crores of Rupees. Present matter is a instance of the same in which about Rs.1 & ½ Crore was left with the defendant/borrowers on the cost of tax payers. Applicant bank has deliberately wants not to disclose the total outstanding amount on the date of settlement because the same was in higher side than the principal outstanding amount of about Rs.2 & ½ Crore against a settlement amount of Rs.1 Crore.
xxxx xxxx
xxxx
Let a copy of this order be sent to Mr. V. Vaidyanathan, Managing Director and CEO of the applicant bank as well as to Mr Anish Kapur, Regional Head, Chandigarh for appropriate action against the Officers concerned and also to see how public money is being wasted by the Officer(s) concerned, who was/were responsible for settlement of loan account.
Sh. Sanjeev Pathak, Advocate for the appellant stated that observations made were general in nature and were not required to be made by the DRT-III, Chandigarh. It appears that DRT-III, Chandigarh has made generalised observation which appears to be beyond the facts and law applicable to O.A. No.668/2024. The Tribunal should have refrained from making this kind of general observation.
Accordingly the observation “In the day to day working, it came before this Tribunal that Banks and FIs crushes the small borrowers and shake hands with the borrowers who have availed credit facilities of Crores of Rupees” is ordered to be expunged and deleted from the order dated 15.02.2025.
Sh. Pathak further stated that DRT-III, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 15.02.2025 has also ordered to send the copy of the order to the Managing Director and CEO as well to the Regional Head, Chandigarh of the bank for appropriate action against the officers concerned. The counsel for the appellant further stated that the matter was settled with the defendants after obtaining necessary approvals from the competent authority and it is within the financial wisdom of the bank to decide the terms and conditions of settlement after considering all the facts and circumstances of each case.
Accordingly, in view of submission made by Sh. Sanjeev Pathak, it is expected from the senior officers of the bank as detailed in the order dated 15.02.2025 that appropriate action against the officials may be considered after taking into consideration the fact that necessary approvals were obtained from the higher authorities of the bank before entering into settlement with the defendants.
The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.