- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Centre Clears Appointments Of...
Centre Clears Appointments Of Chairpersons In All Five 'Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals' (DRATs)
Sparsh Upadhyay
17 Feb 2022 4:47 PM GMT
The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the proposal of the Department of Financial Services for the appointment of Chairpersons in all the Fiver DRATs [Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals].The following persons have been appointed as chairpersons in the salary of Rs.2,50,000/- (fixed) p.m., for a period of 04 years, or till attaining the age of 70 years, or until further...
The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the proposal of the Department of Financial Services for the appointment of Chairpersons in all the Fiver DRATs [Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals].
The following persons have been appointed as chairpersons in the salary of Rs.2,50,000/- (fixed) p.m., for a period of 04 years, or till attaining the age of 70 years, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest:
1. DRAT, Allahabad
Justice Rajesh Dayal Khare, Former Judge, High Court of Allahabad
2. DRAT, Chennai
Justice S. Ravi Kumar, Former Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Former Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai
3. DRAT, Delhi
Justice Brijesh Sethi, Former Judge High Court of Delhi
4. DRAT, Kolkata
Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Former Judge, High Court of Allahabad
5. DRAT, Mumbai
Justice Ashok Menon, Former Judge, High Court of Kerala
Background
This move by the Centre comes against the backdrop of the stern observations made by many High Courts including the Bombay High Court and the Allahabad High Court, pulling up the Centre for the delay in appointments to the vacant posts in DRTs and DRATs.
The Bombay High Court last week pulled up the Finance Ministry for the delay in the appointment of Chairperson to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Mumbai) and had warned of summoning the Secretary, MoF.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik had observed that they could not "allow justice to become a casualty," and sought a positive response on the appointment of DRAT(Mumbai) by February 21.
The court had had earlier issued several directions suo-motu, for debt recovery litigants since the High Court is flooded with matters that the DRAT must decide. The court held that orders of any DRT in Maharashtra would remain stayed if an appeal is filed in the DRAT(M) along with the deposit of requisite fee and 25% of the debt due.
Similarly, in a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court last week lashed out at Central Government for its failure to make appointments to the vacant posts of Presiding Officer/Chairman of Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh even remarked that if the Government is unable to appoint competent persons as Presiding Officers/Chairmen in D.R.Ts./D.R.A.Ts., then it is better that enactment is scrapped and the tribunals are abolished.
Stating that vacant posts in tribunals increase the burden on the High Court unnecessarily, the Court observed thus:
"It is unfortunate that after creating mechanism and adjudicatory forums, for several months and in some cases years, the posts of Presiding Officer/Chairman are kept vacant and the litigants have to come to this Court. If the Government is unable to appoint competent persons as Presiding Officers/Chairmen in D.R.Ts./D.R.A.Ts., then it is better that this enactment is scrapped and the tribunals are abolished."
Observing thus, the Court sought a response from the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India that what is preventing the Government to appoint Presiding Officers/Chairmen in D.R.Ts./D.R.A.Ts., which are vacant for several months in the country.
In related news, the Supreme Court in September 2021 expressed its disapproval of the Centre's practice of extending the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal of one state to another state due to the unfilled vacancy of Presiding Officer.
A special bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandhrachud and Justice L Nageswara Rao was hearing a petition filed by the State Bar Council of MP challenging a notification issued by the Central Government attaching the jurisdiction of DRT Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) to DRT Lucknow(Uttar Pradesh) instead of filling the vacancy of Presiding Officer at DRT Jabalpur.
Further, in December 2021, taking note of the lack of operation of the Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals(DRATs) in many states due to non-filling of vacancies, the Supreme Court passed an order requesting the High Courts to entertain applications under the SARFAESI under the writ jurisdiction as an interim measure.
"To resolve the problem for the time being, pending further orders, we request the High Courts to entertain the applications which are to be filed before DRT/DRAT", a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice L Nageswara Rao ordered.
Click Here To Read/Download Notification
