To, date
21.09.2022
1 The
Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
2. Presiding
officer DRAT, New Delhi.
SUB: Information
regarding Violation of constitution and oath of office by Pos & ROs of DRTs
showing blind favoritism towards ARCs (private land mafias) and corrupt
bankers.
Sir,
FACTS;-
1 It
is gross misconception that Bank suffers loss due to mortgagor/ borrowers. Fact
is that Banks lose money;-
a) When
bank employees lend money without adequate security on account of personal
relations, % commission via agents/CAs. Corrupt Bank employees are solely
responsible for this loss.
OR
b) Where
Bank employees took adequate security for loan, then they in collusion with
land mafias sells secured assets at peanuts/ throwaway value to Asset
reconstruction companies hereinafter called ARCs @ land mafias. ARCs are in
fact asset destruction companies since they destroy the assets of public sector
banks giving meager /peanuts of their value to banks thus causing loss to
public money and windfall gain to themselves and corrupt employees of banks.
Modus operandii of ARCs
2. ARCs
misuse loopholes in Securitization Act just like Big Bull Harshad Mehta used
loopholes in Banking system in early 1990s to cause loss to banks. in 1990s,
banks legally used private broker for inter bank sale purchase of securities
allowing broker 15 days use of such money which Harshad Mehta used to
artificially fuel stock market. Similarly ARCs use loopholes in securitization
act banks to purchase valuable assets of banks at throwaway price causing great
loss to banks. Loss to bank is not caused by mortgagors but by bank employees
who in collusion sell assets of bank at meager, throwaway price to ARCs. ARCS
are not public sector banks. ARCs and corrupt bank employees are defaulters.
ARCS are not at par with Banks.
Incompetence of bank employees;-
3. Mortgagors/borrowers
entered into barter system. They cannot cause loss to bank as property is given
in exchange of money. But instead of taking instant action as enshrined in
mortgage/ hypothecation agreement and SERFREASI Act to recover dues within 90
days of default, corrupt incompetent bankers do nothing for years and keep on
piling interest over interest and debiting account by expenses of valuation,
audit, insurance court cases etc etc and later close the account by
underselling security at throwaway price to ARCs.
Matters before DRTs do not warrant blind
favoritism.
4. Cause
of bank losses is not because of matters before DRTs. The cases before DRT/
DRATs are mostly of middle class or poor persons who mortgaged their own
houses/properties to start business. The amount of NPAs will not be affected
even if all cases before DRTs and DRATs are allowed in favor of ARCs/banks or
FIs. The sum total of all cases pending before any one DRAT and subordinate
DRTS is not even equal to one case pending before NCLT minimum of which goes
into 40,000-50,000 crores plus, where recovery is being done via insolvency and
bankruptcy code in NCLTs. Statement made by prime minister on floor of the
parliament on 20.7.18 in this context is A-1. Relevant part is ;-
“Our government has created the insolvency
and bankruptcy codes. By this, top twelve defaulters, which are 25 percent of
the total NPA. These cases have been done by the National Company Law Tribunal.
In these 12 large cases an amount of about three lakh crore rupees is hanging.
In just one year, in three of these big cases, our government has got about 55
percent recovery. On the other hand, about 12 major cases which were reported,
about 45 percent of them have been recovered.”
5. Favoritism,
violation of oath, constitution and the statutes;-
Fraud by ARCs with public money is apparent
from their assignment deeds. It is noticed that POs ROs are indulging in
Favoritism towards ARCs by violation of oath, constitution and the statutes as
under;-
i). Facts
, pleading of mortgagors are either not allowed to be read or concealed in
orders.
ii). Constitutional
provisions, rules and provisions of statute citied by of mortgagors are either
not allowed to be read or concealed in orders.
iii). whatever
is stated by ARCs becomes order. Such type of one sided orders can be passed by
any 10th pass having knowledge of english and how to copy and paste pleadings
of ARCs.
It is a privately joked among lawyers that PO / RO will probably not get any salary if paltry amount of Rs 500/- is deducted for every order suffering from concealment/amendment of facts, constitution and statutory provisions. Hence this information.
PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that POs ROs of DRTs
be advised;-
1. POs
should check assignment deeds. In case fraud is noticed they should invoke
sec.22(1) of RDB act to give them same percentage of recovery at which they got
assigned the principle secured debt. For Example; if Rs 10 cr principle secured
debt is bought by ARC at say Rs 1 cr ie 10% than ARCS should get 10% of their
investment ie 10% of 1 cr means Rs 10 lakhs only. Principles of natural justice
(quid pro quo) enshrined in section 22(1) of RDB act of deciding cases in DRTs.
Option to direct investigation by agencies is also an option available to
judges in appropriate cases.
2. POs and ROs of DRTs should not treat ARCS at par with Banks but treat ARCs as defaulters.
3. POs and ROs should truthfully & honestly mention and discuss Facts, pleading of mortgagors in orders.
4. POs and ROs should honestly mention and discuss Constitutional and statutory provisions citied by mortgagors in orders.
It is duty of every court to go by constitution and the statute. It should not apply general presumptions surmises (thumb rule) while deciding cases. If feel appropriate, this letter be brought to notice of benches dealing with DRT cases. I have no case pending either directly or indirectly regarding DRT matters in High Court.
K D Aggarwal Advocate
