This is with reference to the article `Why DRT legislation needs a rethink' (Business line, June 1). The author has rightly pointed out the unscrupulous manner adopted by banks to shield their staff.

There is one such ongoing case in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) where a nationalised bank had sanctioned a mortgage loan without verifying the encumbrance certificates with the Registrar, thus resulting in the attachment order of DRT. A year-and-a-half later, the bank is yet to file a counter. Two questions arise. Firstly, why is there no procedure to call for objections before passing such attachment orders? This results in the unnecessary loss of resources and time on obtaining stay orders.

Secondly, why is there no mechanism to transfer the case to a civil court, in cases where the bank takes an unreasonable time to file a counter? Does this not arouse suspicion in the minds of the judges about a possible weakness in the bank's defence? It is time the DRT sheds its biased approach in trying such cases.

S. Sairam

Chennai

Letters to the editor and contributions can be sent by e-mail to: bleditor@thehindu.co.in

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line