DRT Registrar Can't Suo Motu Question Limitation, Maintainability Of SARFAESI Plea: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Registrar cannot suo motu refer a securitisation application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to the DRT by examining questions of maintainability, limitation or locus standi.

Justice P.V. Balakrishnan set aside the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, rejecting an unnumbered securitisation application filed by Ramachandran P, and remitted the matter to the Registrar for consideration in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Bench observed:

“..the Registrar has no right to delve into the application in detail, pose questions regarding maintainability, limitation etc., and place the matter before the DRT suo motu, which has been done in the instant case.”

Ramachandran had filed the securitisation application before the DRT challenging a sale conducted by Catholic Syrian Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Registrar referred the unnumbered application to the DRT for consideration of the question of limitation. The DRT subsequently rejected the application.

The High Court relied on its earlier ruling in Fathima M.P. v. IDBI Bank Ltd., 2026 (5) KLT 50, where it held that the Registrar is only the Chief Ministerial Officer of the DRT and is not vested with judicial powers under the Act, Rules or Regulations.

Following that ruling, the Bench held that the Registrar cannot examine the application in detail or raise questions regarding its maintainability, limitation or other such issues and suo motu place it before the DRT.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the DRT's order rejecting the unnumbered securitisation application and remitted the matter to the Registrar, directing consideration of the application strictly in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules and the law laid down in Fathima M.P..