1. In these seven connected Unregistered Appeals this Appellate Tribunal passed the order under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act directing the appellants to deposit in all Rs. 7,50,40,000/- (Rupees seven crores fifty lakhs forty thousand only) (Details mentioned in the order under Section 21).
2. The total amount claimed in the seven Original Applications (OAs) by the Bank was about Rs. 12 crores. This Appellate Tribunal in the order under Section 21 passed on 18.4.2001 directed the appellants to deposit with the branch of the Bank concerned the amounts mentioned below : __________________________________________________________________ 7,50,000/- (Seven lakhs fifty thousand only ) __________________________________________________________________ 7,50,40,000/- (Seven crores fifty lakhs forty thousand only).
__________________________________________________________________ 3. These amounts were ordered to be deposited on or before 19.7.2001.
The amounts were not deposited by the appellants within 19.7.2001.
Consequently all the seven appeals stood dismissed.
4. After a detailed consideration of the evidence before this Tribunal, the remarks passed by this Tribunal are : 'The compromise decrees against the appellants were passed by the Civil Court as far back as March, 1990. There was a lot of bungling by the Bank. Why did not the Bank execute the decrees at the earlier stage It calls for a serious inquiry against all the Bank Officers concerned. The Bank chose to file applications before the DRT to issue Recovery Certificates only in 1998.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.F. Saldanha of the Karnataka High Court in his judgment dated 14.6.2000 in R.F.A. No. 357 of 1995, H.C. of Karnataka at Bangalore (Canara Bank v. T.T, Nanjunda and Anr.), has been pleased to observe regarding "public loss of horrifying dimensions" and "high level of dishonesty and negligence of the Bank Officers". The Hon'ble Judge has been pleased to observe further that "The bottom line of this unhappy story is that this class of litigations represents a clear attempt to shift the misdeeds of the Bank Officers to the legal system". The observations of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saldanha are opposite to the present Unregistered Appeals." 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner Bank (petitioner in IAs 3 in all the connected Appeals) has prayed for expunging the above stated remarks.
6. It bears repetition. Rs. 7,50,40,000/- was ordered to be deposited under Section 21. The appellants have not paid any amount so far. The Bank has not recovered any amount so far. It is obvious that the chances of the Bank recovering the amount are very slender.
7. It is obvious that the Bank Officers had lent the amounts to financially unsound parties, for reasons best known to themselves.
8. The learned Counsel for the Bank brought to my notice the payments made by the appellants after the compromise decree. The total number of payments made comes to 35. The amounts were not paid as agreed upon in the compromise before the Civil Court except very few payments. When the payments were not made as per the compromise decree the Bank should have filed Execution Petition long ago if they were interested in recovering the amount.
9. The Bank has slept over the matter without taking proper steps well in time. Even after the compromise decree the Bank has further advanced loan to enable the appellants to carry on their business. This means that the Bank Officers were more interested in the appellants than in the Bank. Loan was advanced further, as per the compromise decree before the Civil Court, to enable the 1st defendant to continue their business and thereby to generate funds for repayment of the amount.
Have they repaid any amount Obviously no.
10. It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the Bank that there was an honest attempt on the part of the Bank to recover the amount. I do not agree. My conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Bank has not received any amount after the order under Section 21 was passed.
11. From the Chart produced by the Bank it is clear that there was repeated default in making payments as per the compromise decree. The Bank did not take any steps to file in time execution to recover the amounts. There was Rip Van Winkle altitude on the part of the Bank.
12. The compromise decree against the appellants was passed in March, 1990. The Bank chose to file application before the DRT for issue of Recovery Certificate only in 1998.
13. In view of the circumstances borne out by records this Tribunal has appropriately passed some remarks in the interests of the nation. They cannot be expunged. Loss of more than Rs. 12 crore public money has been caused. Should not those responsible for this unfortunate state of affairs be made answerable 14. It is made abundantly clear that the learned Counsel for the Bank tried his best to argue the case and there was no lapse on his part.