AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate, who claims himself to be the 'arguing Counsel' for some of the Certificate Debtors in Recovery Case No. 54/2004 pending before Shri Alok Kumar Dixit, the Recovery Officer attached to Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi has felt aggrieved with that part of the proceedings of 24th March, 2017 recorded by the learned Recovery Officer where the Recovery Officer has observed that Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari had 'started shouting' and used 'demeaning language' while appearing before him after the case had already been adjourned for 25.4.2017. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari has approached this Tribunal to exercise the power conferred under Section 17-A(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and to expunge the said remarks of the Recovery Officer from the proceedings of 24th March, 2017.
The proceedings recorded the Recovery Officer on 24th March, 2017 are re-produced below:
"24.3.2017
IREDA versus M/s NEPC Agro Foods Ltd. & Ors.
Present: Mr. Noel Cherobin Counsel for the CHFI alongwith Mr. Manish Chandra officer of IREDA
Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal Counsel for the CDs 1, 2, 5 & 6
Mr. Vipin Singh Proxy Counsel for CDs. 3, 4 & 7
The Counsel for CDs. 1, 2, 5 & 6 submitted that CDs are not in a position to deposit the remaining Rs. 10 lacs of the upfront amount towards OTS. In response the Counsel for CHFI shown a copy of communication dated 11.1.2017 requesting CDs to provide certain documents for consideration of OTS, which have not been supplied by the CDs till date. He has further submitted that CDs have also not deposited the remaining part of earnest money and are dragging the matter for the past 7 months. It has also been submitted that previously CDs lingered on the matter on the pretext of OTS and neither supplied the relevant documents not have deposited the earnest money.
The Counsel for CHFI further requested to allow the CHFI for appropriating a sum of Rs. 35 lacs deposited by CDs. Records were perused. In consideration of fact and circumstances, present and previous conduct of CDs, the request of CHFI is allowed and CHFI is directed to appropriate Rs. 35 lacs against the outstanding dues of CDs.
The Proxy Counsel for CDs. 3, 4 & 7 appeared and mentioned that they have approached Hon'ble DRAT against the order of Hon'ble Presiding Officer passed in the present O.A. and on the last date of hearing before Hon'ble DRAT, Hon'ble DRAT has called for the records of O.A. and R.C. On query about any stay of the recovery proceedings have been stayed or not by the Hon'ble DRAT and the same can be said only after receiving the copy of order. He has further submitted that he will file the copy of the order of Hon'ble DRAT by Tuesday i.e. by 28.3.2017 and requested not to take any coercive steps till 28.3.2017.
The Counsel for CHFI vehemently opposed the submission of the opposite Counsel and submitted that for the past one year CDs. 3, 4 and 7 are not complying the directions of this Forum and willfully, they have not filed their affidavit of assets. Records reveal that CDs. 3, 4 and 7 appeared through their Counsel on 10.3.2016 and till date they have only sought adjournment on one ground of the other. They have not bothered to file compliance of any order of this Forum. Their conduct is against the objective and spirit of RDDBFI Act and CDs 3, 4 and 7 do not deserved any further leniency. The request of CHFI is allowed and Registry is directed to issue arrest warrants, which shall be served by CHFI and CHFI snail file service report thereof. However, in light of the request of CDs. 3, 4 and 7 and the Principals of natural justice, CDs. 3, 4 and 7 are being given liberty to file the order of Hon'ble DRAT by 28.3.2017 and thereafter Registry shall place the copy of the order and arrest warrants for my signatures.
The matter is adjourned to 25.4.2017.
Copy of the order be given dasti to parties.
Sd/-
(Alok Kumar Dixit)
Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Delhi.
Later on, proxy Counsel for CDs. 3, 4 and 7 appeared before me alongwith Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari. Mr. Bhandari started shouting and alleged that this Forum don't give equal opportunities to the Counsel for CDs and CHFI. Very often, this Forum waits for the Counsel for CHFI and do not wait for the Counsels of CDs and passes adverse order against them without hearing them. He had also used demeaning language. Shri Bhandari should remain in courteous manner in future being the officer of the Court.
It is a matter of record that the CDs have been given repeated opportunity to present his case and the allegations that he has not been heard are not tenable. The proxy Counsel for CDs further submitted that he has filed the copy of order of Hon'ble DRAT vide Dy. No. 3321 as of today which was perused. Hon'ble DRAT has summoned the records of OA as well as of the RO and there is no stay on the recovery proceedings. In the light of this fact, registry is directed to issue arrest warrants against CDs. 3, 4 and 7, which shall be served by CHFI and CHFI shall file service report thereof.
Sd/-
(Alok Kumar Dixit)
Recovery Officer DRT-I, Delhi"
From this order itself it is clear that the learned Recovery Officer had given sufficient time to the CDs to disclose their assets but they had not complied with his order to that effect and a stage had reached when arrest warrants had to be ordered against them for non-compliance of the directions for disclosing their assets. On 24th March, 2017 one proxy Counsel for the three CDs, with whose case we are concerned in the present matter, had appeared and informed the learned Recovery Officer that these CDs had approached the DRAT against an order passed by the Presiding Officer of DRT who was seized of these CD's application for setting aside of the final order passed in the O.A. whereby an ex parte decree had been passed against them, and DRAT had summoned the files of the Presiding Officer as also of the Recovery Officer and the proxy Counsel wanted deferment of the issuance of arrest warrants. The Recovery Officer had while ordering issuance of arrest warrants against CDs 3, 4 and 7, however, deferred the execution of arrest warrants till 28th March, 2017 to enable the CDs to produce the order of the DRAT. However, after the matter had been adjourned the same proxy Advocate for the three CDs contacted the 'arguing Counsel' Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari for the CDs instead of the Advocate whose Vakalatnama was on record since he was not available. The arguing Counsel Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, who has filed his own affidavit in support of his request for expunging the remarks against him, accompanied the proxy Counsel to the Court of the Recovery Officer where as per the proceedings recorded by the Recovery Officer and re-produced above, Mr. Bhandari started shouting and used demeaning language while expressing his grievance that the Recovery Officer in routine does not wait for the Advocates for CDs which he does for the Advocates for the Banks/FIs.
In my view, the Learned Recovery Officer ought not to have taken up the matter which had already been adjourned by him to 25.4.2017 even if the proxy Counsel accompanied by Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari had appeared before him after adjournment of the case. In case, the Recovery Officer was perturbed by the shouting of Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, which allegation of course has been seriously refuted by Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, the matter could have been dealt with separately instead of; picking up the adjourned matter and recording whatever had transpired after the | adjournment as has been noted by the Recovery Officer in the subsequent portion! of the proceedings recorded on 24.3.2017. If at all the Advocate had behaved in a! manner, which the Recovery Officer was of the view to be 'demeaning' arrest warrants against the CDs on that very date which earlier were to be issued only on 28.3.2017 after copy of this Tribunal's order had been placed before me, ought not to have been issued because of the alleged wrong behavior of the Advocate. Whatever transpired after the adjournment of the main matter had nothing to do with the matter which already stood adjourned. In any case no such conduct could be attributed to the Advocate, as has been done by the Recovery Officer without hearing him and making it known to him that his behavior in Court was inappropriate. In these circumstances, I hereby order expunging of the adverse remarks noticed already made by the Recovery Officer against Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate in the order passed on 24.3.2017 after the main matter had already been adjourned to 25.4.2017 and now the Recovery Officer will not re-open that Chapter.
This matter stands disposed of accordingly.