MATHEWS J.

NEDUMPARA
President
NATIONAL LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS
12 F, A wing, Harbour Heights, Narayan A Sawant Rd, Azad Nagar, Colaba, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400005
Mob: +91 98205 35428
E-mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

12.5.2022

To,
1) Hon’ble Mr. Justice NV Ramana
Chief Justice of India

2)Hon’ble the Chief Justices of the

various High Courts in India

3) The Chairpersons of the various

Tribunals, particularly NCLAT, DRAT

3) The Chairperson
DRAT, Mumbai

3) The Presiding Officers,

DRT- I, II & III, Mumbai

4) Secretaries in the Ministry of Law and Justice &

Ministry of Finance (Department of Banking),
Government of India

Sub: Harassment of the lawyers and litigants by the Registrars/Registry of the DRAT, DRTs
- complaint reg.

1. The very idea behind the creation of tribunals in substitution of the Civil Court is the

expeditious delivery of quality and speedy justice by making access to justice easy.

However, the state of the tribunals in this country, particularly, DRTs, Mumbai, is pathetic.

The Registry has become an obstruction rather than being a facilitator. I am made to

understand that in addition to the rules framed under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy

Act and the SARFAESI Act, the DRTs have framed voluminous rules of practice which
 would even put to shame the Bombay High Court original side and appellate side rules

which are notorious for its volume.

2. The immediate reason for this complaint is the refusal to number an SA filed in challenge

of the order of the District Magistrate under the SARFAESI Act to take take possession of

my client's property. The Magistrates under Section 14 of the Act, in terms of the various

judgements of the Bombay High Court pass orders to secure forceful possession without

notice to the Borrower, tenant, person affected. In the instant case too, the Collector passed

an order to take possession behind my client's back. The Tahsildar sought police protection

to dispossess my client today. I mentioned the matter before the Hon’ble P.O and the court

was kind enough to direct the matter to be listed at 2.30pm. However, the Registrar would

not send the papers to the bench, because according to him one more defect remained to be

cured, namely, that the certified copy of the order of the Magistrate has not been produced.

3. It was explained to the Registrar, DRT-II, that the order was passed behind the Petitioner's

back and that if the Petitioner were to secure a certified copy of the order first, then in the

meantime he would get dispossessed. My juniors even undertook to produce the certified

copy within 2 weeks’ time. The Registrar still would not agree. The practice of the DRT in

Mumbai is to cause maximum harassment to the litigant and lawyers. They maintain a

lengthy checklist. One of the common objections is that the application is drawn on A4

size paper, on both sides. The Registry insists that it should be on ledger paper. I have on

more than one occasion brought to the notice of the authorities concerned of the various

tribunals to adopt the practice of filing on A4 paper on both sides, which is the common
 practice today, with the SC and HCs insisting it to do so. The SC insists so to save mother

earth, for every sheet of paper means a drain on the forest resources. Many of these

practices, a malaise, continues only because nobody bothers to take up these issues and rid

of these obstructions to justice.

4. I am sure that this letter will receive the gracious attention of the authorities and that

emergent corrective steps will be taken to make access to justice inexpensive, hassle free

and expeditious, and in that fond hope I remain.

5. I shall be grateful for a response from your honours and excellencies.

With kind regards,

Yours Sincerely,

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA