SYNDICATE BANK Vs. BANGALORE PROCESS EQUIPMENT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Advocates. Though there is some delay which is pointed out by the Respondents' learned Advocate, in my considered view, the proper course would be to hear the appeal and dispose it of on merits once and for all.

(2.) THE Civil Petition is accordingly allowed. The Regular First Appeal is restored. The Appellants' are permitted to deposit the balance amount against the paper book within a period of one week from today. I consider it only just and reasonable that for the indulgence shown to the institution, token cost quantified at Rs. 1,001/ - to be paid to the Advocates' Welfare Fund. The amount to be paid and the receipt to be filed with the Office within two weeks. Appeal to be listed for hearing in normal course.

(3.) THIS Court is constrained to observe, and that too with a degree of righteous indignation that very recently shock waves went through the public mind when the Government of India published the disturbing figures relating to outstanding debts owing to the Banks in this Country as standing at Rs. 51,000 Crores. Undoubtedly, as a palliative or more appropriately a cover -up, the dues have been euphemistically categorised as "non -performing assets". Almost by way of passing on the buck, the Banking Sector has virtually dumped on the Judiciary the massive burden arising out of the recoveries and it is estimated that as much as 29% of all judicial time is consumed by this branch of litigation. Inevitably, where the Court's time has to be rationed out, the casualty is the other areas where even criminal cases or urgent issues relating to human rights, atrocities against women etc., have to wait for years because of this artificial burden. The banking institutions are heavily over -staffed and the employees are well remunerated but experience has shown that the conduct of this class of cases is so very sluggish that one gets the impression that a deliberate attempt is on to ensure that the litigation fails or becomes infructuous, the beneficiary being the opposite party. The time -frame when analysed, reveals the painful fact that despite having all the facilities, financial or otherwise, these cases take, on an average 11 times as long as others. What is really pathetic is the fact that even in those instances where the banks have won, that invariably the conduct of the proceeding before the trial Court is so cavalier that even in instances where there is no defence and the Bank has succeeded and the opposite party has not appealed, that the Bank start the second round of litigation by appealing in order to correct their own avoidable mistakes such as correction of the computation of the amount due, rate of interest and the like. Irrespective of the fact that some of this litigation is now transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the time has come to ensure that these cases are conducted with a top level of proficiency and speed and in order to enforce that, the courts will have to penalise the banks at every stage of the proceeding by imposing exemplary costs. This Court needs to issue a firm warning and on this occasion, only token costs quantified at Rs. 1,001/ - are being awarded. Also, it is necessary for the court to direct that the costs should be channelised for a worthy purpose by being credited to the Advocates' Welfare Fund which is a Fund specially set up bearing in mind the fact that lawyers being self -employed are badly in need of assistance in cases of accidents, illhealth, incapacity, handicap, death and the like. The expectation of this Court is that the banking sector will heed the warning and professionalise its performance which in turn will ensure quicker and effective recoveries.