Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Consider Deputing Member From Subordinate Judiciary As A Stop Gap Arrangement Till Appointments Are Made In DRTs: Delhi HC To Centre

Nupur Thapliyal
6 Dec 2021 6:00 AM GMT
Consider Deputing Member From Subordinate Judiciary As A Stop Gap Arrangement Till Appointments Are Made In DRTs: Delhi HC To Centre
x

The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to consider the option of deputing a judicial member from subordinate judiciary as a stop gap arrangement till the appointments in Debt Recovery Tribunals in the city are made in pursuance of the selection process. Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh sought a status report to be filed in this regard before December 15, the next date of...

The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to consider the option of deputing a judicial member from subordinate judiciary as a stop gap arrangement till the appointments in Debt Recovery Tribunals in the city are made in pursuance of the selection process.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh sought a status report to be filed in this regard before December 15, the next date of hearing.

"In any event, considering the fact that there is no judicial member presently occupying any of the DRTs in Delhi and even DRATs are headless, the Union of India should, on priority consider the said option," the Court said.

The Bench was hearing a plea raising the issue of delay in disposal of high-value recovery cases pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunals. In one of the earlier hearings in the matter, the Court had directed the respondents to constitute a Committee to examine this situation.

The development came after the Centre told the Court that in terms of a Kerala High Court judgment, it would not be possible to authorise Presiding Officers of the DRTs situated in another States to attend cases pending before the DRTs in Delhi.

It was also submitted that the Central Government had sought information from other Tribunals if they could spare Judicial Member to handle the DRTs in Delhi, however, no positive response was received, and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi had refused on the ground that they were themselves short of Judicial Members.

"We have put it to Mr. Prakash that another option available to the respondent No.1 is to, as a stop gap arrangement i.e. till the appointments are made in pursuance of the selection process in undertaken, request the High Court to depute a Judicial Member from the subordinate judiciary. There are past precedents in this regard, however, in the past, the posts were advertised against which judicial member of the subordinate judiciary had applied to serve in the DRTs on deputation," the Court ordered.

Previously, the Court had granted six weeks time to the Central Government for coming up with the Rules to deal with high value cases, where the recovery is in excess of Rs. 100 crores in relation to the Debt Recovery Tribunals.

Earlier, the Court had directed the Centre to ensure appointment of Recovery Officers in Debt Recovery Tribunals across India without any delay.

It had also condemned the delay by Central Government in appointing Presiding officers to Debt Recovery Tribunals across the country.

The Court also noticed that despite the Supreme Court directing for lawyers with 10 years standing or more being qualified to offer their candidature for appointment to the DRT, the respondent had till date not implemented the said decision.

Case Title: Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Secretary, Department of Financial Services & Ors. 

Click Here To Read Order 


Next Story