(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.)

The Petitioner had filed an application for sale of immovable property that was mortgaged in its favour by the borrower on a pari passu basis with the other banks. The Application was filed before the Recovery Officer in the recovery proceedings which were pending before him. It has been averred that the borrower made a submission to the effect that there was a stay with respect to the recovery proceedings against certain other banks having a pari passu charge on the immovable property and hence, the Petitioner also stood prohibited from proceeding with the recovery. It has been averred that the Recovery Officer agreed with the view of the borrower and did not permit the Petitioner to proceed with the recovery. The Petitioner filed an Appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer before the Presiding Officer of the DRT in January 2011. The pleadings were complete and the hearing was concluded on 6 May 2011. When the Appeal was reserved for orders, the date fixed for orders was 10 June 2011. On 10 June 2011, the order was not delivered and another date, 14 July 2011, came to be fixed. Thereafter, the date for the passing of the order has been fixed on 14 July 2011 as 18 August 2011, on 18 August 2011 as 23 September 2011 and on 23 September 2011 as 20 October 2011. On 20 October 2011, the proceeding has been adjourned to 30 November 2011. The Petitioner has been constrained to move this Court in view of the delay on the part of the Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. in delivering Judgment and, necessary directions have been sought.

2. Section 19(24) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 stipulates that an application made under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) shall be dealt with by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the application finally within 180 days from the date of receipt of the application. This provision underlines that the primary intent is to facilitate expeditious recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which was introduced in Parliament shows that the existing procedure for recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions had blocked a significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, the value of which deteriorated with the passage of time. The Bill sought to provide for the establishment of Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The provisions of Section 19(24) have been made in order to effectuate the salutary object underlying the expeditious recovery of outstanding dues of banks and financial institutions.

3. Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that after the case has been heard, the Court shall pronounce judgment in an open Court, either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose. Every endeavour has to be made by the Court under the proviso to pronounce the Judgment within 30 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable to do so, on the ground of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Court shall fix a future day which shall not ordinarily be a day beyond 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded. Now, undoubtedly, the Tribunal under the Act of 1993 is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by virtue of Section 22, but is to be guided by the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is, subject to the Act and Rules, empowered to set down its own procedure. Obviously however, the rules and procedure must effectuate the object of expeditious adjudication.

4. Section 22 of the Act requires the Tr