The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot dismiss applications due to a shortage of stenographers and typists.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized that the presiding officer of the DRT should address staffing shortages by raising the issue with the competent authority rather than rejecting applications on such grounds.

“The dismissal of applications due to a shortage of stenographers and typists is unwarranted. The applications should have been heard and decided on their merits. If there is a lack of infrastructure and staff, the presiding officer should escalate the matter to the competent authority, rather than allowing it to be a reason for dismissal,” the Court observed.

The petition was filed by Sarabjit Singh Company challenging the orders of DRT-III, Chandigarh, which had rejected an application seeking a stay on the bank's move to take physical possession of a secured asset and a request for advancing the hearing of the case.

Senior Advocate DS Patwalia, representing the petitioner, argued that the application had been erroneously dismissed based on a heavy board and a severe shortage of stenographers and typists at the tribunal.

In response, the Bank of India’s counsel informed the Court that the petitioner would not be dispossessed from the secured asset until February 28.

Taking into account that applications should not have been dismissed due to staff shortages, the High Court set aside the DRT-III orders and allowed the petition.

“The matter is remanded back to DRT-III, Chandigarh, for fresh consideration and an expeditious decision in accordance with the law, while taking into account the proposal submitted by the petitioner,” the Court directed.

Additionally, the Court acknowledged the shortage of stenographers and typists at the DRT and recorded the Union government’s assurance that if the presiding officer submitted a requisition for additional staff, it would be addressed at the earliest.

“The presiding officer is requested to send the requisition for staff to the Government of India with a copy to the Additional Solicitor General of India without delay,” the Court ordered.

Senior Advocate DS Patwalia, along with Advocate Gaurav Rana, appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Rajiv Joshi represented the Bank of India, while Senior Deputy Advocate General Aftab Singh Khara appeared for the State of Punjab. Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain, and Advocate Neha Dalal represented the Union of India.

Case Title: Sarabjit Singh Company and another v. Debts Recovery Tribunal III and others.