• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager
• BL Club
• Smartbuy
• Books

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth
• Events 2007

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

L.N. Revathy

Coimbatore, March 6 The Debt Recovery Tribunal in Coimbatore is said to exist just in name. With the Presiding Officer at the helm on a long leave, and the PO from Madurai, now holding additional charge visiting the centre once a fortnight, the number of cases pending disposal is said to be on the rise.

Bankers seem to have lost faith in the system, especially because Orders have not been issued in many cases. ‘It takes more than 18 to 24 months to get the Recovery Certificate. We refrain going to the DRT, but what to do,’ lament bankers.

While bankers decry the functioning of the DRT, advocates’ anguish is no better.

Recapping the developments, Mr L.S. Lakshmanan, President, DRT Advocates Association, said originally two DRTs were sanctioned for Coimbatore, but even before DRT II took off, the Government notified the establishment of new DRTs in Madurai and Chennai, and rearranged the jurisdiction of the DRTs in the State.

In the process, excepting Coimbatore, Nilgiris and newly formed Tirupur districts, the others such as Erode, Salem, Namakkal, Tiruchy, Dindigul, Theni and Madurai have been transferred to the jurisdiction of DRT, Madurai. Dharmapuri and Pudukottai districts, which were hitherto attached to the DRT Coimbatore, was transferred to DRT III in Chennai.

‘We filed a writ before the Madras High Court seeking justification for such reallocation, especially because districts such as Salem, Erode and Namakkal are within a radius of 100 – 150 km from here. The Government opposed the writ stating that the redistribution of the districts was not on the basis of geographical location or proximity, but on account of the number of pending cases outstanding,’ he explained.

A perusal of the pending cases reveal that 901 cases were pending before DRT Coimbatore, compared to 2,260 cases at the time of establishment of the DRT here in 2002, when files were transferred from DRT I and II, Chennai. ‘The disposal rate has been speedy. It would have been much faster if the tribunal had not suffered for want of a Presiding Officer between 2003-2005,’ argued Mr Lakshmanan.

Thereafter, there were signs of improvement, albeit for a brief period. At present, the issue is not just about having a PO to deal with the cases on a regular basis, but staff shortage and jurisdiction issue consequent to the establishment of a DRT in Madurai.

‘Every time there is transfer of cases to different tribunals of districts in terms of its jurisdiction, there is the attendant delay of not less than six months for disposal of cases as it requires serving of fresh notices to all defendants after re-numbering the cases in the new tribunal,’ he said, adding ‘one or two months are lost in indexing and transportation of such bundles, another two months or so for verification and re-numbering cases and some more months for serving notices.’

Thus the transfer of cases pertaining to Erode and Salem Districts at this juncture would only be counter-productive for quick disposal of cases, Mr Lakshmanan said.

A Special Leave Petition filed by the DRT Advocates Association against the Order of the High Court has been admitted and is due to be heard soon, said Mr Lakshmanan.

‘Since DRT is a forum for adjudication of cases, it should function under the Law Ministry. And the Presiding Officer should be well-versed in Civil Law. The appointment of a retired/sitting District Judge as the PO would be more apt,’ state advocates.

Mr Lakshmanan said ‘proceedings under the SARFAESI Act also faced similar problems because the DRT is the platform for recovering bank dues’.

Industry insiders say borrowers turn out to be eventual beneficiaries when there is an undue delay in disposal of cases. ‘There have been instances of borrowers selling out properties ignoring the charge created by banks,’ say advocates.

They feel that all third party mortgages should be outside the purview of the SARFAESI Act, because they pose varied problems for banks. ‘Such mortgages should come under scanner,’ reiterate advocates.

More Stories on : Non-Performing Assets | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line