# I S.C.R. 401 CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION v. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2017] 1 S.C.R. 401
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i-s-c-r-401-centre-for-public-interest-litigation-v-housing-urban-development-31768
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Jnslitutions
Act. 1993- EnforcemenJ of Security /merest and Recovery of Debt
Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 -
Requirement of expeditious disposal of proceedings before the Debt
Recut•ery Triburrals - Legislative cha,ges may not by themselves
achieve the intended object so long as infra~·tructure provided to
the Tribu11als is not commensurate with the burde11 of the work and
nature of judicial duties- Union Government directed to file affidavit
dealing with various i:rsues in regard to infrastructure of Debt
Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals.
Parliament enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
and Financial Institutions Act, J993 for providing for the
estaNishment of tribunals and appellate tribunals for expeditious
adjudication and recovery of dues to banks and financial
institutions. Subsequently, in order to deal with tbe large pendency
of c:ases,the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of
Debt Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016
has been enaded.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1. Legislative ~banges to provide ror expeditious
disposal of proceedings before tbc Debt Recovery Tr.ibunals may
not by themselves achieve the intended object so long as the
infrastructure provided to the Tribunals is not commensurate with
the burden of the work and nature of judicial duties. Tbe Debt
Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals suffer from a lack or
adequate infrastructure, manpower and resou"es. Haviag due
regard to the importaat adjudicatory function whiclt ia entruatcd
401
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
.H
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20 17] I S.C .R.
A
to these Tribunals, the efficaty of parliamentary legislation will
depend in a large measure on the efficiency with which the
Tribunals discharge their duties. (Para 4) (403-H; 404-A-CJ
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
2. The Union Government is directed to file an affidavit
specificaJiy dealing with the following issues: (i) Whether the
timelines set down in the amended legislation are capable of being
achieved with the existing infrastructure including judicial
personnel and staffing pattern of the Debt Recovery Tribunals
and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals; (ii) The underlying basis,
if any, upon which the revised timelines have been stipulated and
whether any scientific study has been conducted on the
availability of infrastructure; (iii) Whether, and if so, what steps
the Union government intends to adopt to enhance the
infrastructure of Debt Recovery Tribunals and the Appellate
Tribunals in terms of physical infrastructure, judicial manpower
and non-judicial personnel required for the efficacious functioning
of the Tribunals; (iv) The specific plan of action including timeS(bedules within which the existing infrastrudure would be
upgraded so as to achieve the time frame for disposal indicated
in the amended legislation; and (v) Empirical data on the pendency
of cases for more than teo years and tlte list of corporate entities
where the amount outstanding is in excess of Rs.500 crore.
However, the direction for filing of affidavit shall not in any manner
affect the functioning of the Committee which has already been
constituted by the Union government. (Paras 5, 6] (404-D-GJ
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
573 of2003.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
Ranjit Kumar. SG, Jaideep Gupta, ·sr. Adv., Prashant Shushan,
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Govind Jee. Rohit Kumar
Singh, R. Chandrachud, Ms. Binu Tamta, D.L.Chidananda, R.K. Venna,
R. R.Rajesh, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Kuldeep S. Parihar, H.S.Parihar, Pranab
Kumar Mullick, Ms. Soma Mullick, Sebat Kumar Deuria, A. Chatterjee,
Mudit Sharma, Ms. Nina Gupta, Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ranu Purohit,
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Vishal Gehrana, Milanda Sharma, Ms. Manik
Karanjawala, Pankaj Pandey, P. Panneswaran, Rajeev Sharma, Vikas
Mehta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION v. HOUSING & 403
URBA

## Text

[2017] I S.C.R. 401
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
v.
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
& ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 573 of2003)
JANUARY 03, 20 17
(T.S. THAKUR, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND,
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.)
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Jnslitutions
Act. 1993- EnforcemenJ of Security /merest and Recovery of Debt
Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 -
Requirement of expeditious disposal of proceedings before the Debt
Recut•ery Triburrals - Legislative cha,ges may not by themselves
achieve the intended object so long as infra~·tructure provided to
the Tribu11als is not commensurate with the burde11 of the work and
nature of judicial duties- Union Government directed to file affidavit
dealing with various i:rsues in regard to infrastructure of Debt
Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals.
Parliament enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
and Financial Institutions Act, J993 for providing for the
estaNishment of tribunals and appellate tribunals for expeditious
adjudication and recovery of dues to banks and financial
institutions. Subsequently, in order to deal with tbe large pendency
of c:ases,the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of
Debt Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016
has been enaded.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1. Legislative ~banges to provide ror expeditious
disposal of proceedings before tbc Debt Recovery Tr.ibunals may
not by themselves achieve the intended object so long as the
infrastructure provided to the Tribunals is not commensurate with
the burden of the work and nature of judicial duties. Tbe Debt
Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals suffer from a lack or
adequate infrastructure, manpower and resou"es. Haviag due
regard to the importaat adjudicatory function whiclt ia entruatcd
401
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
.H
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20 17] I S.C .R.
A
to these Tribunals, the efficaty of parliamentary legislation will
depend in a large measure on the efficiency with which the
Tribunals discharge their duties. (Para 4) (403-H; 404-A-CJ
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
2. The Union Government is directed to file an affidavit
specificaJiy dealing with the following issues: (i) Whether the
timelines set down in the amended legislation are capable of being
achieved with the existing infrastructure including judicial
personnel and staffing pattern of the Debt Recovery Tribunals
and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals; (ii) The underlying basis,
if any, upon which the revised timelines have been stipulated and
whether any scientific study has been conducted on the
availability of infrastructure; (iii) Whether, and if so, what steps
the Union government intends to adopt to enhance the
infrastructure of Debt Recovery Tribunals and the Appellate
Tribunals in terms of physical infrastructure, judicial manpower
and non-judicial personnel required for the efficacious functioning
of the Tribunals; (iv) The specific plan of action including timeS(bedules within which the existing infrastrudure would be
upgraded so as to achieve the time frame for disposal indicated
in the amended legislation; and (v) Empirical data on the pendency
of cases for more than teo years and tlte list of corporate entities
where the amount outstanding is in excess of Rs.500 crore.
However, the direction for filing of affidavit shall not in any manner
affect the functioning of the Committee which has already been
constituted by the Union government. (Paras 5, 6] (404-D-GJ
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
573 of2003.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
Ranjit Kumar. SG, Jaideep Gupta, ·sr. Adv., Prashant Shushan,
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Govind Jee. Rohit Kumar
Singh, R. Chandrachud, Ms. Binu Tamta, D.L.Chidananda, R.K. Venna,
R. R.Rajesh, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Kuldeep S. Parihar, H.S.Parihar, Pranab
Kumar Mullick, Ms. Soma Mullick, Sebat Kumar Deuria, A. Chatterjee,
Mudit Sharma, Ms. Nina Gupta, Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ranu Purohit,
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Vishal Gehrana, Milanda Sharma, Ms. Manik
Karanjawala, Pankaj Pandey, P. Panneswaran, Rajeev Sharma, Vikas
Mehta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION v. HOUSING & 403
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. I. Prior to the establishment
of Debt Recovery Tribunals, as on 30 September 1990, more than fifteen
lakh cases filed by public sector banks and about three hundred and four
cases filed by financial institutirins were pending befoie various courts.
The amounts involved were to the extent ofRs. 5,622 crores in dues ~f
public sector banks and Rs. 391 crores of financial institutions. Following
the Reports of the Narasimhan Committee and the 2 Tiwari Committee,
Parliament enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financia1
Institutions Act, 1'993 for providing for the establishment of tribunals and
appellate tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of dues due
to banks and financial institutions.
2. At present, thirty four Debt Recovery Tribunals· and five.
Appellate Tribunals are functioning in the country. In financial year 20 15A
B
c
16 these Tribunals disposed of about 16,000 original applications involving
a total amount ofRs. 34,000 crores. Since their inception until31 October
2015, the Tribunals had disposed of 1,34,433 original applications leading
fl·
to the recovery of an amount of Rs. 70,725 crores. The Tribunals are
also vested with the jurisdiction to entertain securitization applications.
under the Securitisation and· Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
i Thi~ Court has bet:n apprised, in the submissions filed by the
E ·
Union government, that more than 70,000 cases involving an amount of
Rs.S lakh crores approximately are pending before the Debt Recovery
Tribunals, of which many are pending for more than ten years .. ~ho~gh
the Act of 1993 provides for the disposal of recovery ap.plications within·
one hundred and eighty days, cases have remained pending for years
F
together. In order to deal with the large pendency of cases,. the .
Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debt Laws ai~d
Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016 was introduced in the
Lok Sabha on 11 May2016. The Bill was refer~ed to a Joint Committee
of3 both Houses.ofParl.iament. The Committee presented its Report·to
the Lok Sabha on 22 July 20 16. Eventually, a law has been enacted by
G
both the Houses of Parliament and published in the E-gazette on .16
August 2016.
4. Legislative changes to provide for expeditious disposal of
proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunals ·may not by themselv~s
.•
.
.
.
.
.
H
404
A
B
c
D
-
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20 17] I S.C.R.
achieve the intended object so long as the infrastructure provided to the
Tribunals is not commensurate with the burden of the work and nature
of judic~al duties. Recently, the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad addressed a letter on 9 December 20 16
to the Chief Justice oflndia recording that he was constrained to tender
his resignation from the post of Chairperson since, in the absence of
infrastructure and facilities, the functioning of the adjudicating body over
which he presided had become impossible. This is symptomatic of a
trend whereby the Debt Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
suffer from a lack of adequate infrastructure, manpower and resources.
Having due regard to the important adjudicatory function which is
entrusted to these Tribunals, the efficacy of parliamentary legislation
will depend in a large measure on the efficiency with which the Tribunals
discharge their duties.
5. We accordingly direct the Union Government to file an affidavit
specifically dealing with the following issues:
(i) Whether the time lines set down in the amended legislation are
capable ofbeing achieved with the existing inftastructure includingjudicial
personnel and staffing pattern of the Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt
Recovery 4 Appellate Tribunals;
(ii) The underlying basis, if any, upon which the revised tim~ lines
have'been stipulated and whether any scientific study has been conducted
on the avai labi I ity of infrastructure;
i.
(iii) Whether, and if so, what steps the Union government intends
to adopt to enhance the infrastructure of Debt Recovery Tribunals and
the Appellate Tribunals in terms of physical infrastructure, judicial
manpower and non-judicial personnel required for the efficacious
functioning of the Tribunals;
.(iv) The specific plan of action including time-schedules within
which the existing infrastructure would be upgraded so as to achieve the
time frame for disposal indicated in the amended legislation; and
(v) Empirical data on the pendency of cases for more than ten
years and the list of corporate entities where the amount outstanding is
in excess of Rs:SOO crore.
6. T.he affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from
today. We clarify that this direction for the filing of a further affidavit
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION v. HOUSING & URBAN
405
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
shall not in any manner affect the functioning of the Committee which
A
has already been constituted-by the Union government and whose report
is awaited.
Ankit Gyan
Direetions issued.
•
; ... ,