STANDARD CHARTERED BANK versus DHARMINDER BHOHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 410 · Decided: 13-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 410 
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK 
v. 
DHARMINDER BHOHI AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 8486 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
SEGUR/TISA TION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF 
FINANCIAL 
ASSETS 
AND 
ENFORCEMENT 
OF 
C SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002: 
Delay in disposal of cases and granting of adjournments 
by ORT and DRAT - Object of the Act - Explained -- Held: 
Delay in disposal of application by DRT and appeal by DRAT 
0 has the potentiality or creating a corrosion in the economic 
spine of the country - Grant of an adjournment should be an 
exception and not a routine and mechanical matter -
Tribunals are expected to act in quite promptitude, so that an 
. ingenious litigant does not take recourse to dilatory toctics -
In the case at hand, there was no reason for DRAT to keep 
E on adjourning the matter and finally dispose it by passing an 
extremely laconic order -- A curative step is warranted and 
Chairman and Members of DRAT shall endeavour to remain 
alive to the obligations as expected of them by such special 
legislations, namely, SARFAES/ Act and ROB Act -
F Adjournments. 
RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND 
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993: 
G 
ss. 19 and 22 - Object of the Act and the procedure 
before Tribunal - Held: DRT and ORA T shall not be bound 
by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 
but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and 
subject to the rules framed -- They have been conferred 
H 
410 
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. DHARMINDER 
411 
BHOHI 
powers to regulate their own procedure, as the very purpose 
A 
of their establishment is to expedite disposal of applications 
and appeals preferred before them -- They have the character 
of specialized institutions with expertise and have been 
confeffed jurisdiction to decide the /is in speedy manner so 
that the larger public interest, that is, the economy of the 
B 
country does not suffer. 
s.19(25) - Powers of Tribunal - Held: s.19(25) confers 
limited powers -- Tribunal has been given power under the 
statute to pass such other orders and give such directions as 
C 
to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process 
or to secure the ends of justice -- Tribunal is required to 
function within the statutory parameters - It does not have any 
inherent powers - Tribunal cannot assume the role of a court 
of different nature which can grant "liberty to initiate any action 
against the bank" -- Taking note of a submission made at the 
D 
behest of auction purchaser and then proceed to say that he 
is at liberty to file any action against bank for any omission 
committed by it, has no sanction of law -- Therefore, the 
observation, namely, "liberty is also given to the auction 
purchaser to file action against the bank for any omission 
E 
committed by it", is deleted -- Judgment of High Court whereby 
it has declined to interfere with the grant of liberty by ORA T 
is also set aside. 
Respondent no. 1 obtained a home loan from· the 
F 
appellant-Bank on 17.5.1999, and on his failure to repay 
the same, the Bank proceeded to sell the mortgaged 
property, which he had purchased from respondent no. 
2- developer. Respondent no. 1 filed an application u/s 
17(1) read with s.19 of the Securitisation and 
G 
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of 
Security Interest Act, 2002(5ARFAESI Act). The matter 
was taken to DRAT and then to High Court. Meanwhile 
the property was sold and respondent no. 3, the auction 
purchaser, deposited the required amount. However, the 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A ORT, by its order dated 25.10.2005 granted time to the 
borrower to deposit the entire amount with the bank and 
the developer, and Rs. 1 lakh to auction purchaser-
respondent no. 3, as compensation. Respondent no. 1 
filed an appeal before the DRAT, which, by an interim 
B order directed him to deposit Rs.7.55 lakhs with the Bank, 
and while disposing of the appeal, inter alia, directed the 
Bank to return Rs.25,60,000/- to auction-purchaser-
respondent no. 3 and granted liberty to respondent no. 
3 to file action against appellant-Bank "for any omission 
c committed by it". The writ petition filed by the B.mk was 
dismissed. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Delay in disposal of the application by the 
D ORT and the appeal by DRAT has the potentiality of 
creating a corrosion in the economic spine of the country. 
It is significant t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.