DRT Can Hear Only Banks' Recovery Applications Against Borrowers Under RDB Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has clarified that under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has jurisdiction only over recovery applications filed by banks and financial institutions and cannot entertain suits or proceedings initiated by borrowers or third parties against banks.Justice N. J. Jamadar said that while the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters the DRT is empowered to decide, that bar does not extend to...

Non-Borrower Aggrieved By SARFAESI Action Can Approach DRT, Writ Not Maintainable: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that a flat purchaser whose property is treated as a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act cannot bypass the remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by directly invoking writ jurisdiction. The court said a writ petition is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy is available. Justice Sunil Beniwal dismissed the petition, holding that even though the petitioner was not a borrower or a guarantor, the possession notice directly affected his...

Mandatory Pre-Deposit For SARFAESI Appeal Applies To Mortgagor Who Secured Another's Loan: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has clarified that, in the facts before it, a person who mortgages property to secure another party's loan is treated as a “borrower” under the SARFAESI Act and must comply with the mandatory pre-deposit before an appeal can be heard by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash said the statute leaves no scope to exclude such mortgagors from the deposit requirement. “We are of the view that there is no need and...

SARFAESI Act Does Not Mandate Resorting To Section 14 In Every Case Of Taking Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a secured creditor is not mandatorily required to invoke proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of secured assets, and that possession can be lawfully taken directly under Section 13(4) read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, where no resistance is offered by the borrower.A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav allowed a writ petition filed by...

SARFAESI Act | Correcting Wrong Date In District Magistrate's Section 14 Order Is Not Review: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has upheld a District Magistrate's decision to correct a wrong date in a SARFAESI order passed to assist a bank in taking possession of mortgaged property, holding that fixing a typographical error does not amount to an impermissible review. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act performs an administrative role while passing such orders and does not exercise judicial power. Because of this, the magistrate is permitted to...

Section 14 | Banks Can Take Possession Without Magistrate's Assistance Under SARFAESI: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday held that a secured creditor is not required to mandatorily approach the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before taking physical possession of secured assets, so long as the statutory requirements under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) are complied with. A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav set aside orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, and the Debts Recovery...

Mere Allegations Of Fraud Don't Give Civil Courts Jurisdiction In SARFAESI Cases: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has refused to interfere with SARFAESI recovery proceedings involving State Bank of India, holding that fraud or collusion allegations alone do not give civil courts jurisdiction when a statutory remedy lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Justice Niral R. Mehta said that challenges to such measures, including claims of fraud, must be raised before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which has wide powers under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to examine the legality,...

Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge To DRT Registrar's Power To Issue Notices In SARFAESI Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court has rejected a challenge to a notice issued by the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in a securitisation case, holding that the Registrar was empowered under the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. “When power to issue notice to a defendant has specifically been conferred upon the Registrar of DRT, it cannot be said that the Registrar has no power to issue notice to a defendant to show-cause as to why the S.A. should not be allowed, and also to caution the defendant...

After Account Turns NPA and Recovery Suit Is Filed, Interest Is at Tribunal's Discretion: DRAT Allahabad

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Allahabad has reiterated that once a loan account is classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) and a recovery suit is filed, contractual terms governing interest do not automatically apply. The tribunal said it is for the adjudicating forum to decide the rate of pendente lite and future interest. A coram of Chairperson Justice R.D. Khare dismissed an appeal filed by Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (HUDCO) against an order of the...

Mortgagor's Right Of Redemption Prevails Over Auction Purchaser's Claim Of Title: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that while an auction purchaser acquires certain rights upon being declared the successful bidder, such rights are not absolute and cannot override the statutory right of redemption available to the mortgagor under law.The court said once the borrower exercises the right of redemption by clearing the dues before the transfer of the secured asset, the auction purchaser cannot claim an indefeasible right over the property.A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar...

Secured Creditors Must Act Speedily After SARFAESI Notice; Delay Defeats Law's Purpose: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that once a secured creditor initiates recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, it must act without delay, failing which the very purpose of the law stands defeated. A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, while dismissing a review petition filed by Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd, observed that lenders cannot remain inactive after issuing a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. “After initiating the proceedings...

Pre-Deposit For Filing SARFAESI Appeal Must Be Paid To Tribunal, Not Lending Bank: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has clarified that the mandatory pre-deposit required to file an appeal under the SARFAESI Act must be paid to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and not to the lending bank. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Kerala Gramin Bank, setting aside a single judge's order that had directed the borrower to deposit money with the bank itself in order to pursue its appeal before the...