AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Since both these Appeals No. 33 of 2023 and Appeal No. 35 of 2023 have arisen in a common matter between the parties, hence they are being decided by one judgment.
Appeal No. 35 of 2023 Jay Jagannath Castings Pvt. Ltd. & Others is filed by the defendants against the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by Learned DRT Cuttack in O.A. No. 63 of 2014 UCO Bank Versus M/s Jay Jagannath Castings (P) Ltd. and others while the Appeal No. 33 of 2023 is filed by the defendants against the judgment dated 10. 02.2021 passed the DRT Cuttack rejecting the counter claim (which is numbered as O.A. No. 123 of 2019) in O.A. No. 63 of 2014.
O.A. No. 63 of 2014 was allowed against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and exparte against Defendant Nos. 4 and 6 for recovery of Rs..8,53,18,168.40/.
In O.A. No. 63 of 2014 defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 filed a counter claim (which is numbered as O.A. No. 123 of 2019) which was decided by the Learned DRT by a separate judgment and counter claim was dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed in O.A. as well as the counter claim Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who were defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 before the Learned DRT preferred the Appeal No. 33 of 2023 against rejection of counter claim while Appeal No. 35 of 2023 is preferred against allowing the O.A. Application.
As would appear from the pleadings of the parties O.A. No. 63 of 2014 was filed by the UCO Bank against these defendants for recovery of 8,53,18,168.40/-. O.A. was allowed on contest against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (Appellant herein) and exparte against defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Pending O.A., counter claim was also filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 which was dismissed by the Learned DRT.
At the very outset, without entering into the merits of the matter, Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the impugned judgment could not be sustained. It is submitted that the arguments in the O.A. proceedings including counter claim were concluded before the Learned DRT on 23.12.2019. Copy of order sheet dated 23.12.2019 is on record which is as under:
“Both the counsels are present. Heard both sides. Both the Counsels requested time to file written notes in admission of the counter claim. O.A. also heard in part. For filing written notes in O.A. and counter claim also.
Call on 25.01.2020.”
Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank fairly conceded that no Order Sheet was written or no Order was passed after this Order Sheet before the Learned DRT. Simply judgment was delivered on 10.02.2021. Accordingly, now this factual situation is established that no effective hearing took place before the Learned DRT after 23rd December, 2019. Thereafter, judgment was delivered on 10.02.2021 i.e. after about 14 months of hearing the arguments.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Balaji Baliram Mupade and another Versus State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 12 SCC 603 wherein in Para No. 11 Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“It cannot be countenanced that between the date of the operative portion of the order and the reasons disclosed, there is a hiatus period of nine months! This is much more than what has been observed to be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of reserved judgment as per Anil Rai case. (Anil Rai versus State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1009.”
In Para No. 14 of the judgment Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration of the High Court on merits. In that case there was a delay of 9 months in delivery of judgment. However, in the present case, there is a delay of about 14 months in delivery of judgment.
The inordinate, unexplained and negligent delay in pronouncing the judgment is not only against the provisions of law but also infringes the rights of the litigant. Any procedure or course of action which does not ensure a reasonable, quick adjudication has been termed to be unjust. Such a course is stated to be contrary to the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, that an act of the court shall prejudice none.
In R.C. Sharma Versus Union of India (1976) 3 SCC 574 it was held that –
“Nevertheless, we think that an unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly undesirable even when written arguments are submitted. It is not unlikely that some points which the litigant considers important may have escaped notice. But, what is more important is that litigants must have complete confidence in the results of litigation. This confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments. Justice, as we have often observed, must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done.”
In Anil Rai versus State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 is was held that-
“Adverse effect of the problem of not pronouncing the reserved judgments within a reasonable time was considered by the Arrears Committee constituted by the Government of India on the recommendation of the Chief Justices’ Conference. In its report of 1989-90, Chapter VIII, the Committee recommended that reserved judgments should ordinarily be pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments. If, however, a reserved judgment is not pronounced for a period of three months from the date of the conclusion of the arguments, the Chief Justice was recommended to be authorized to either post the case for delivering judgment in open court or withdraw the case and post it for disposal before an appropriate Bench.”
It was further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that-
“A time has come when the judiciary itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regards for the attainment of the rule of law. For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly. It is the policy and purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to the expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted justice.”
In such circumstances, without entering into the merits of the matter keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (supra), we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment and remit back the same to the Learned DRT for decision afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, Appeal deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
Appeal No. 33 of 2023 and Appeal No. 35 of 2023 are allowed. Impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed by Learned DRT Cuttack in O.A. No.123 of 2019 (Counter Claim) (Arising out of O.A. No. 63 of 2014) and O.A. No. 63 of 2014 is set aside. Matters are remitted back to the Learned DRT Cuttack for decision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. No observations regarding merit of the matter have been made in this judgment. Since it is a very old matter, Learned DRT should decide the same within a period of three months from the date of a copy of this order is received. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Learned DRT Cuttack forthwith.
Let a copy of this order be also circulated to all the DRTs within the jurisdiction of DRAT Kolkata for further guidance.
No Order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be placed in the records of Appeal No. 33 of 2023 and Appeal No. 35 of 2023.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.
Order dictated and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2024.