Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd. and Vs. Industrial Investment Bank of - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants') in o.a. 94/2001 filed by the 1st respondent-industrial investment bank of india (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-bank) before the debts recovery tribunal-ii, delhi (hereinafter referred to as the drt) for the recovery of rs. 1,37,97,204/- with subsequent interest and costs.2. on 25.4.2001, the learned presiding officer of the drt directed issue of show-cause notices on the o.a. to the defendants and also granted an ad interim ex pane injunction restraining the appellant/1st defendant and its directors from selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged immovable properties of the 1st defendant company with all buildings, structures, plants and machinery.3. the 1st respondent-bank m(sic)ed an application and la. 296/2001 in september, 2000, stating, among other things, that consortium loan granted to the appellant/1st defendant was rs. 10 crores, that on 25.4.2001, the drt had granted the injunction and had also appointed a commissioner to take an inventory who visited the factory premises of the appellant/1st defendant on 11.7.2001, and submitted a report, that the report showed that a portion of the mortgaged factory together with a spinning plant had been leased out by the appellant/1st defendant to m/s. hindustan polyster lines (p.) ltd., that the same had been done without the prior permission of the financial institutions, that the lease had been given for a period of three years, and that the lease rental is being usurped by rajiv aggarwal, to the exclusion of the financial institutions who are entitled to receive the rent, and appropriate the same towards the outstandings. the respondent-bank prayed for summoning the appellant/1st defendant and/or rajiv aggarwal as also the lessee m/s. hindustan polyster lines (p.) ltd. for disclosing the details of the lease including the rent, and to whom the same is paid. the respondent/plaintiff also prayed that the lessee should be directed to pay the rent to it every month with liberty to keep the same in separate account.4. the appellant/1st defendant filed a reply opposing this application mainly raising a preliminary objection that the o.a. 94/2001 as well as la. 296/2001 were not maintainable being violative of rule 9 of the debts recovery tribunal (procedure) rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), which provides, among other things, that all the documents relied upon by the applicant-bank, and those mentioned in the application shall be filed along with the o.a., but, urged that the respondent-bank had not annexed relevant documents. the appellant 1st defendant also urged that the lease was prior to the order of injunction passed by the drt.5. the learned presiding officer of the drt, by his order dated 28.8.2002, gave the following directions on the abovesaid interlocutory application: 1. the 5th defendant should on affidavit within a week from the date of the order as to how much rent has already been received by him, and as to what happened to that amount. 2. the 5th defendant should mention specifically whether he has deposited any portion of the rent with any of the creditors and, if so, give the details. 3. the 5th defendant, should disclose the monthly rentand also file a copy of lease deed. 4. m/s. hindustan polyster lines (p.) ltd., who are the lessee of defendants 1 and 5 should immediately start depositing the monthly rent commencing from 1.9.2002 with the bank, and the said amount shall be kept in separate recurring deposit account so that it earns interest, and no prejudice is caused to any of the parties, till the case is decided.6. aggrieved, the 1st defendant company through its managing director and r.s. aggarwal (5th defendant) have approached this tribunal with this appeal.7. the 1st respondent-bank, the 5th respondent-ifci, and the 8th respondent-life insurance corporation of india have filed separate replies opposing the appeal.8. notice to respondents 2 to 4 was dispensed with on the request of the learned counsel for the appellants, while respondents 6, 7 and 9 remain ex pane.9. i have heard the learned counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.10. the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned presiding officer was not justified in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the interlocutory application on which the impugned order was passed, and the main o.a. are not maintain able. according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent-bank was bound to file the documents relied upon by it in support of its claim in the o.a. also those documents mentioned in the o.a., but did not do so, which is a violation of rule 9 of the rules which specifically provides that every application (o.a.) shall be accompanied by a paper book containing (among other things mentioned in this rule) all documents relied upon by the applicant, and those mentioned in the application.he also refers to rule 11 which provides that the copy of the application (o.a.), and the paper book shall be served on each of the defendants. by relying upon these provisions, he contends that such documents should have been produced and copies of such documents should have been supplied to the appellants/defendants, and since these documents were not filed by the respondent-bank, and since the copies of such, documents have not been given to the appellants/defendant, the o.a. as well as the interlocutory application are not maintainable at all.11. the learned counsel for the appellants also contends that apart from raising these pleas in the reply to the application (on which the impugned order has been passed), the appellants/defendants also filed an application specifically mentioning about the non-supply of the documents, the non-compliance with the provisions of rule 9 and the necessity of filing those documents for the adjudication of the claim, and for putting up the defence for the defendants also prayed for a direction to the respondent-bank to file the copies of the documents relied upon by it in the o.a., and also to supply copy of the same to the defendants to enable them to put forward their defence. the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants further contends that without deciding in the first instance, this application filed by the appellant/1st defendant for a direction for producing the documents, and for supply of the copies thereof, the learned presiding officer has passed the impugned order which resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice. he contends that the appellants/defendants have not been not given an opportunity to put forth their defence in an appropriate manner, resulting in the passing of an adverse order against them. he therefore, contends that the impugned order should be set aside.12. but, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, contend that the appellants have to pay a huge sum to the financial institutions, that the appellants had no right to lease the mortgaged property without the permission of the financial institutions, and that too, in violation of the order of injunction passed by the drt. they also contend that the intention of the defendants is to misappropriate the rent received without depositing the same with any of the financial institutions and, therefore, in order to protect the interest of all the financial institutions which have advanced money to the appellants, the learned presiding officer has passed the impugned order which is under challenge. according to them, the order is just and legal and does not require to be interfered with.13. but, i find that there is no material before me to show that the copies of all the documents relied upon, and mentioned in the o.a. have been supplied to the appellants/ defendants. even in the reply to the appeal filed by the 1st respondent-bank, this objection has not been met by specifically stating that the documents were supplied. of course, the impugned order indicates that the counsel for the 1st respondent-bank had undertaken to supply copy of the o.a. and all the documents only to the counsel for the defendants 8 and 10. relying upon this, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-bank contends that this means that the appellant/defendants must have been given the copies and, that is why they had not raised this objection at that time and, therefore, there was no such direction by the learned presiding officer to supply copies to the appellants/defendants. but, in my view, this contention cannot be accepted, because, we find that the appellants/defendants have also filed separate application seeking a direction from the drt to the respondent-bank to produce and supply copies of all documents relied upon by it. no material has been placed before this tribunal to show that any order .vas passed on that application either way or that the copies were, in fact, supplied to the appellants/defendants. therefore, the appellants are well within their rights in raising an objection that the relevant documents have not been produced, and that copies thereof have not been given to them for the purpose of putting forth their defence and, therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. the application filed by the appellants/defendants for supply of the copies of the documents should have been disposed of before the application filed by the respondent-bank was disposed of by means of the impugned order. even without such an application filed by the appellants/defendants, the respondent-bank was bound to produce not only the documents relied upon by it, but also the documents mentioned in the o.a. in view of the provision contained in rule 9 and also to supply copies thereof to the defendant in view of the provisions contained in rule 11. inasmuch as there is no material before me to show that the documents were either produced or copies thereof were given to the appellants/ defendants, the objection by the appellants/defendants, in my view is well taken.14. therefore, this court has to interfere with the impugned order as a confirmed interim order. but, in my view, the impugned order has to be retained as an ad interim order in order to protect the interests of the respondent-bank, and the financial institutions since, according to them, a huge sum of money is due, and the appellants/defendants, without obtaining the prior permission of the financial institutions, have leased out the spinning plant; and are appropriating the rent for themselves without paying any amount to the respondent-bank and the financial institutions. therefore, while setting aside the impugned order (dated 28.8.2002) as a confirmed interim order, the matter has to be remitted back to the drt for consideration of the application-i.a.296/2001, and fresh disposal. the learned presiding officer of the drt will take back that application to its original number, consider, and then dispose it of in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations contained in this order. before ever taking that application for consideration, the learned presiding officer of the drt will take up for consideration and dispose of the interlocutory application filed by the appellants/defendants for a direction to the respondent-bank to supply them the copies of all the documents relied upon by the respondent-bank, and the documents mentioned in the o.a.(unless the said application has been disposed of in the meanwhile.) if the said application is allowed, the respondent-bank will have to furnish copies of the documents relied upon by it, and the documents mentioned in the o.a. to the appellants/defendants. thereafter, the learned presiding officer will take up i.a. 296/2001, and dispose it of in accordance with law, and in light of the observations contained in this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides.15. of course, there is also dispute between the parties as to whether the lease was prior to or after the order of injunction passed by the learned presiding officer of the drt. whether the lease is before or after the order of injunction, the learned presiding officer of the drt will have the jurisdiction to pass appropriate interim orders to safeguard the interests of the respondent-bank and the financial institutions in view of the provisions contained in sub-sections (12) and (25) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').16. in these circumstances, in my view, the impugned order as a confirmed interim order will have to be set aside, but it will remain as an ad interim order till the disposal of the abovesaid application la. 296/2001 in the manner stated above.17. the learned counsel for the contesting respondents raised an objection to the maintainability of this appeal itself on the ground that the 1 st appellant/defendant-company has been ordered to be wound up, and thereafter the managing director of the company, and the 2nd appellant/5th defendant have not right to file the appeal. such a contention cannot be accepted. under section 20 of the act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the drt can prefer an appeal. the appellants/defendants, being aggrieved by the order, have filed this appeal. even otherwise, the appellants have specifically stated in the reply filed by them before the drt to la. 296/2001 that the order of winding up was challenged by the defendants by way of filing company appeal 4/2002, and that stay of operation of the order has been confirmed. even otherwise, in my view, it cannot be stated that the appellants cannot maintain this appeal. the fact that the company has been ordered to be wound up and an official liquidator has been appointed does not take away the residuary powers of the director of the company. the official liquidator is appointed to safeguard the assets of the company in the interests of the creditors of the company, and he cannot be expected to take protective measures against adverse orders passed against the company or its directors. it will be for the company and/or the directors of the company to take such protective measures in order to avoid adverse orders vide decisions in rishabh agro industries ltd. v. pnb capital services ltd., iv (2000) slt 717=2000(5) supreme court cases 515; e.a. syndicate ltd. v. rajendra kumar singh, air 1959 mp 95. these decisions clearly support my view.therefore, this objection taken by the contesting respondents cannot be accepted, and it find that the appeal by the appellants is maintainable.18. in the result, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside as a confirmed interim order, but it will remain as an ad interim order till the disposal of i.a. 296/ 2001 by the learned presiding officer of the drt. the matter is remitted back to the drt concerned for fresh disposal. the learned presiding officer of the drt will take the said application on file to its original number. but, before taking up la. 296/2001 for the consideration and disposal, the learned presiding officer will first decide the interlocutory application filed by the appellants/defendants seeking a direction to the respondent-bank to produce the documents relied upon by it, as also the documents mentioned in the application and to supply copies thereof to them and dispose of the same in accordance with law (unless it has been disposed of in the meanwhile). if the said application is allowed, then the respondent-bank should produce those documents, and also furnish copies to the appellants/ defendants within two weeks from the date of disposal of that application. it is thereafter that the learned presiding officer shall take up la. 296/2001 for consideration, and dispose it of in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations contained in this order after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing la. 296/2001 shall be disposed of within four months from the date of disposal of the application for supply of copies of documents mentioned by the appellants/defendants.19. for this purpose, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the drt on 30.4.2003 for taking further directions in this matter from the drt, without waiting for any further notice from the drt.

Judgment:
1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants') in O.A. 94/2001 filed by the 1st respondent-Industrial Investment Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Bank) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the DRT) for the recovery of Rs. 1,37,97,204/- with subsequent interest and costs.

2. On 25.4.2001, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed issue of show-cause notices on the O.A. to the defendants and also granted an ad interim ex pane injunction restraining the appellant/1st defendant and its Directors from selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged immovable properties of the 1st defendant company with all buildings, structures, plants and machinery.

3. The 1st respondent-Bank m(SIC)ed an application and LA. 296/2001 in September, 2000, stating, among other things, that consortium loan granted to the appellant/1st defendant was Rs. 10 crores, that on 25.4.2001, the DRT had granted the injunction and had also appointed a Commissioner to take an inventory who visited the factory premises of the appellant/1st defendant on 11.7.2001, and submitted a report, that the report showed that a portion of the mortgaged factory together with a spinning plant had been leased out by the appellant/1st defendant to M/s. Hindustan Polyster Lines (P.) Ltd., that the same had been done without the prior permission of the financial institutions, that the lease had been given for a period of three years, and that the lease rental is being usurped by Rajiv Aggarwal, to the exclusion of the financial institutions who are entitled to receive the rent, and appropriate the same towards the outstandings. The respondent-Bank prayed for summoning the appellant/1st defendant and/or Rajiv Aggarwal as also the lessee M/s. Hindustan Polyster Lines (P.) Ltd. for disclosing the details of the lease including the rent, and to whom the same is paid. The respondent/plaintiff also prayed that the lessee should be directed to pay the rent to it every month with liberty to keep the same in separate account.

4. The appellant/1st defendant filed a reply opposing this application mainly raising a preliminary objection that the O.A. 94/2001 as well as LA. 296/2001 were not maintainable being violative of Rule 9 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), which provides, among other things, that all the documents relied upon by the applicant-Bank, and those mentioned in the application shall be filed along with the O.A., but, urged that the respondent-Bank had not annexed relevant documents. The appellant 1st defendant also urged that the lease was prior to the order of injunction passed by the DRT.5. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by his order dated 28.8.2002, gave the following directions on the abovesaid interlocutory application: 1. The 5th defendant should on affidavit within a week from the date of the order as to how much rent has already been received by him, and as to what happened to that amount.

2. The 5th defendant should mention specifically whether he has deposited any portion of the rent with any of the creditors and, if so, give the details.

3. The 5th defendant, should disclose the monthly rentand also file a copy of lease deed.

4. M/s. Hindustan Polyster Lines (P.) Ltd., who are the lessee of defendants 1 and 5 should immediately start depositing the monthly rent commencing from 1.9.2002 with the Bank, and the said amount shall be kept in separate recurring deposit account so that it earns interest, and no prejudice is caused to any of the parties, till the case is decided.

6. Aggrieved, the 1st defendant company through its Managing Director and R.S. Aggarwal (5th defendant) have approached this Tribunal with this appeal.

7. The 1st respondent-Bank, the 5th respondent-IFCI, and the 8th respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India have filed separate replies opposing the appeal.

8. Notice to respondents 2 to 4 was dispensed with on the request of the learned Counsel for the appellants, while respondents 6, 7 and 9 remain ex pane.

9. I have heard the learned Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.

10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Presiding Officer was not justified in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the interlocutory application on which the impugned order was passed, and the main O.A. are not maintain able. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the respondent-Bank was bound to file the documents relied upon by it in support of its claim in the O.A. also those documents mentioned in the O.A., but did not do so, which is a violation of Rule 9 of the Rules which specifically provides that every application (O.A.) shall be accompanied by a paper book containing (among other things mentioned in this Rule) all documents relied upon by the applicant, and those mentioned in the application.

He also refers to Rule 11 which provides that the copy of the application (O.A.), and the paper book shall be served on each of the defendants. By relying upon these provisions, he contends that such documents should have been produced and copies of such documents should have been supplied to the appellants/defendants, and since these documents were not filed by the respondent-Bank, and since the copies of such, documents have not been given to the appellants/defendant, the O.A. as well as the interlocutory application are not maintainable at all.

11. The learned Counsel for the appellants also contends that apart from raising these pleas in the reply to the application (on which the impugned order has been passed), the appellants/defendants also filed an application specifically mentioning about the non-supply of the documents, the non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 9 and the necessity of filing those documents for the adjudication of the claim, and for putting up the defence for the defendants also prayed for a direction to the respondent-Bank to file the copies of the documents relied upon by it in the O.A., and also to supply copy of the same to the defendants to enable them to put forward their defence. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants further contends that without deciding in the first instance, this application filed by the appellant/1st defendant for a direction for producing the documents, and for supply of the copies thereof, the learned Presiding Officer has passed the impugned order which resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice. He contends that the appellants/defendants have not been not given an opportunity to put forth their defence in an appropriate manner, resulting in the passing of an adverse order against them. He therefore, contends that the impugned order should be set aside.

12. But, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, contend that the appellants have to pay a huge sum to the financial institutions, that the appellants had no right to lease the mortgaged property without the permission of the financial institutions, and that too, in violation of the order of injunction passed by the DRT. They also contend that the intention of the defendants is to misappropriate the rent received without depositing the same with any of the financial institutions and, therefore, in order to protect the interest of all the financial institutions which have advanced money to the appellants, the learned Presiding Officer has passed the impugned order which is under challenge. According to them, the order is just and legal and does not require to be interfered with.

13. But, I find that there is no material before me to show that the copies of all the documents relied upon, and mentioned in the O.A. have been supplied to the appellants/ defendants. Even in the reply to the appeal filed by the 1st respondent-Bank, this objection has not been met by specifically stating that the documents were supplied. Of course, the impugned order indicates that the Counsel for the 1st respondent-Bank had undertaken to supply copy of the O.A. and all the documents only to the Counsel for the defendants 8 and 10. Relying upon this, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Bank contends that this means that the appellant/defendants must have been given the copies and, that is why they had not raised this objection at that time and, therefore, there was no such direction by the learned Presiding Officer to supply copies to the appellants/defendants. But, in my view, this contention cannot be accepted, because, we find that the appellants/defendants have also filed separate application seeking a direction from the DRT to the respondent-Bank to produce and supply copies of all documents relied upon by it. No material has been placed before this Tribunal to show that any order .vas passed on that application either way or that the copies were, in fact, supplied to the appellants/defendants. Therefore, the appellants are well within their rights in raising an objection that the relevant documents have not been produced, and that copies thereof have not been given to them for the purpose of putting forth their defence and, therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The application filed by the appellants/defendants for supply of the copies of the documents should have been disposed of before the application filed by the respondent-Bank was disposed of by means of the impugned order. Even without such an application filed by the appellants/defendants, the respondent-Bank was bound to produce not only the documents relied upon by it, but also the documents mentioned in the O.A. in view of the provision contained in Rule 9 and also to supply copies thereof to the defendant in view of the provisions contained in Rule 11. Inasmuch as there is no material before me to show that the documents were either produced or copies thereof were given to the appellants/ defendants, the objection by the appellants/defendants, in my view is well taken.

14. Therefore, this Court has to interfere with the impugned order as a confirmed interim order. But, in my view, the impugned order has to be retained as an ad interim order in order to protect the interests of the respondent-Bank, and the financial institutions since, according to them, a huge sum of money is due, and the appellants/defendants, without obtaining the prior permission of the financial institutions, have leased out the spinning plant; and are appropriating the rent for themselves without paying any amount to the respondent-Bank and the financial institutions. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order (dated 28.8.2002) as a confirmed interim order, the matter has to be remitted back to the DRT for consideration of the application-I.A.296/2001, and fresh disposal. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT will take back that application to its original number, consider, and then dispose it of in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations contained in this order. Before ever taking that application for consideration, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT will take up for consideration and dispose of the interlocutory application filed by the appellants/defendants for a direction to the respondent-Bank to supply them the copies of all the documents relied upon by the respondent-Bank, and the documents mentioned in the O.A.(unless the said application has been disposed of in the meanwhile.) If the said application is allowed, the respondent-Bank will have to furnish copies of the documents relied upon by it, and the documents mentioned in the O.A. to the appellants/defendants. Thereafter, the learned Presiding Officer will take up I.A. 296/2001, and dispose it of in accordance with law, and in light of the observations contained in this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

15. Of course, there is also dispute between the parties as to whether the lease was prior to or after the order of injunction passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT. Whether the lease is before or after the order of injunction, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT will have the jurisdiction to pass appropriate interim orders to safeguard the interests of the respondent-Bank and the financial institutions in view of the provisions contained in Sub-sections (12) and (25) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

16. In these circumstances, in my view, the impugned order as a confirmed interim order will have to be set aside, but it will remain as an ad interim order till the disposal of the abovesaid application LA. 296/2001 in the manner stated above.

17. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondents raised an objection to the maintainability of this appeal itself on the ground that the 1 st appellant/defendant-company has been ordered to be wound up, and thereafter the Managing Director of the company, and the 2nd appellant/5th defendant have not right to file the appeal. Such a contention cannot be accepted. Under Section 20 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the DRT can prefer an appeal. The appellants/defendants, being aggrieved by the order, have filed this appeal. Even otherwise, the appellants have specifically stated in the reply filed by them before the DRT to LA. 296/2001 that the order of winding up was challenged by the defendants by way of filing Company appeal 4/2002, and that stay of operation of the order has been confirmed. Even otherwise, in my view, it cannot be stated that the appellants cannot maintain this appeal. The fact that the company has been ordered to be wound up and an Official Liquidator has been appointed does not take away the residuary powers of the Director of the company. The Official Liquidator is appointed to safeguard the assets of the company in the interests of the creditors of the company, and he cannot be expected to take protective measures against adverse orders passed against the company or its Directors. It will be for the company and/or the Directors of the Company to take such protective measures in order to avoid adverse orders vide decisions in Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. PNB Capital Services Ltd., IV (2000) SLT 717=2000(5) Supreme Court Cases 515; E.A. Syndicate Ltd. v. Rajendra Kumar Singh, AIR 1959 MP 95. These decisions clearly support my view.

Therefore, this objection taken by the contesting respondents cannot be accepted, and it find that the appeal by the appellants is maintainable.

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside as a confirmed interim order, but it will remain as an ad interim order till the disposal of I.A. 296/ 2001 by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT. The matter is remitted back to the DRT concerned for fresh disposal. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT will take the said application on file to its original number. But, before taking up LA. 296/2001 for the consideration and disposal, the learned Presiding Officer will first decide the interlocutory application filed by the appellants/defendants seeking a direction to the respondent-Bank to produce the documents relied upon by it, as also the documents mentioned in the application and to supply copies thereof to them and dispose of the same in accordance with law (unless it has been disposed of in the meanwhile). If the said application is allowed, then the respondent-Bank should produce those documents, and also furnish copies to the appellants/ defendants within two weeks from the date of disposal of that application. It is thereafter that the learned Presiding Officer shall take up LA. 296/2001 for consideration, and dispose it of in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations contained in this order after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing LA. 296/2001 shall be disposed of within four months from the date of disposal of the application for supply of copies of documents mentioned by the appellants/defendants.

19. For this purpose, the parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the DRT on 30.4.2003 for taking further directions in this matter from the DRT, without waiting for any further notice from the DRT.