Point of Law: Neither Section 19(10A), nor Section 19(10B) make any reference to, nor make it incumbent for the Applicant to file original documents at the time of presenting the Original Application.

JUDGMENT :

VIPIN SANGHI, J

1. The petitioner, which is a financial institution, has preferred the present petition seeking several reliefs - it has prayed for the setting aside of the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned DRT-II in NDN 816/2020 as also for issuance of directions to the respondent no.2 to pass appropriate orders in the Original Application vide NDN No.816/2020. The petitioner has also prayed for appropriate interim orders to be issued to respondent nos. 3-11, in terms of Section 19(3A)(c) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), directing them to disclose the particulars of other properties and assets owned by them to the Tribunal, in terms of the prayer contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petitioner’s Original Application. The petitioner has further sought for a direction to respondent no.2 to dispose of its Original Application in accordance with the manner and time frame set out in Section 19(24) of the Act. Notably, the petitioner also seeks a direction to all Debt Recovery Tribunals situated within the jurisdiction of this Court to expeditiously dispose of all Original Applications that involve a claim amount of Rs. 100 crores and upwards in view of the fact that while the number of cases pending before the DRT with claim amounts of Rs 100 crores and above are only 1%, they account for 80% of the value of claims raised before the DRT. In support of the last prayer, the petitioner has placed reliance on the dictum of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dharminder Bhohi and Ors. 2013 (5) SCC 341.

2. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the petitioner’s Original Application bearing OA No.816/2020 came up before the DRT-II for the first time on 31.10.2020. The same was then taken up for hearing for the first time, by the Registrar, on 27.11.2020, when the petitioner was directed to file original documents. This direction was issued despite the fact that Section 19(3) of the Act only required the petitioner/original applicant to produce true copies of all documents relied upon by it in support of its claim. Thus, even though the statutory position made it clear that it was sufficient to file only true copies, and not originals of the documents that the petitioner was relying upon at the initial stage of presenting the Original Application or for the purpose of seeking issuance of summons and interim orders if any, the DRT insisted that the petitioner should file the original documents. Even the language contained in Form-I in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 framed under the Act, which provides the Format for filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the Act, shows that there is absolutely no requirement for an applicant to file originals of the documents being relied upon, at the initial stage of presenting the Original Application. In fact, paragraph 10 of Form-I entitled Details of documents, explicitly requires the applicant to furnish ‘true copies of all documents and evidence of witnesses along with an index of such documents in duplicate, relied upon in support of the claim.’

3. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, when the matter subsequently came up before the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on 18.12.2020, instead of issuing summons and considering the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief, he adjourned the matter to 18.01.2021 for filing of original documents and hearing on the point of limitation. It is significant to note that even at this point, the petitioner had brought it to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer that Form-I contained in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 only required the Original Application to be accompanied by true copies of all documents at the time of presentation, and that filing of the original documents was not mandatory at that time.

4. On 18.01.2021, the petitioner once again requested the learned Presiding Officer to issue notic