SEBI Law and Practice

SEBI Law and Practice

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is the primary regulatory authority for the securities market in India, established in 1992. Its main objectives include protecting investor interests, regulating the securities market, preventing insider trading, and promoting fair practices. SEBI's regulatory framework encompasses various financial market segments, including stock exchanges, mutual funds, and investment advisers.

SEBI law and practice refers to the rules and regulations established by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to regulate the securities market. SEBI's laws and practices are designed to protect investors, promote the development of the securities market, and prevent fraudulent and unfair trade practices.

SEBI law and practice refers to the rules and regulations that govern the securities market in India. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is responsible for enforcing these laws.

Overview of SEBI Law and Practice

Key Regulations and Acts

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992: This foundational act establishes SEBI's authority and outlines its functions to protect investors and regulate the securities market.

Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, 2003: These regulations aim to prevent deceptive practices in the securities market, ensuring fair trading conditions. They empower SEBI to take action against violations, including suspending trading or imposing penalties.

Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations: These regulations require listed companies to maintain transparency and adhere to corporate governance standards, thereby enhancing investor confidence.

Functions of SEBI

Investor Protection: SEBI implements measures to safeguard investors from fraudulent activities and ensures they are well-informed about their investments.

Market Regulation: It oversees stock exchanges and intermediaries to ensure compliance with regulations and maintain market integrity.

Development of Securities Market: SEBI promotes the growth of the securities market by introducing reforms and facilitating new products.

Training and Education

SEBI also emphasizes education in corporate law through various programs. For instance, courses on the Companies Act and SEBI laws provide practical insights into legal practices related to securities. These courses cover topics such as drafting transaction documents, understanding regulatory frameworks, and navigating compliance issues.

Recent Developments

In a recent move, SEBI requested that the law firm Economic Laws Practice return its briefs due to concerns over conflicts of interest. This highlights the importance of maintaining ethical standards within legal practices associated with regulatory bodies.

SEBI plays a crucial role in ensuring a fair and transparent securities market in India through comprehensive regulations and proactive measures aimed at protecting investors' interests.

SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) Law and Practice refers to the legal and regulatory framework governing the securities market in India. SEBI is the primary regulatory authority for the securities market, established under the SEBI Act, 1992, with the aim of protecting investors, promoting fair market practices, and ensuring transparency.

Key Aspects of SEBI Law and Practice:

1. SEBI Act, 1992

Establishes SEBI as the regulatory body.

Empowers SEBI to regulate the securities market and protect investor interests.

Grants SEBI powers such as rule-making, investigation, and enforcement.

2. Regulatory Framework

SEBI regulates:

Stock Exchanges: Ensuring fair and transparent trading.

Market Intermediaries: Brokers, depositories, registrars, mutual funds, investment advisors.

Listed Companies: Corporate governance, disclosure norms.

Insider Trading: Prevention through SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015.

Takeovers & Mergers: SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.

3. Important SEBI Regulations

SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (LODR)

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003

SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012

SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996

SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 (ICDR)

4. SEBI’s Powers and Functions

Regulating stock exchanges and other intermediaries.

Investigating frauds and taking enforcement actions.

Regulating IPOs, FPOs, and other capital market activities.

Issuing guidelines to enhance market transparency and investor protection.

5. Enforcement and Penalties

SEBI has powers to impose fines, suspend trading, or ban entities from the market.

It can pass orders against fraudulent activities like price manipulation and insider trading.

6. SEBI’s Role in Investor Protection

Introduces investor education programs.

Implements grievance redressal mechanisms like SCORES (SEBI Complaints Redress System).

Ensures transparency in financial markets.

MediumPulse.com: Your Source for Articles, Online News, and a Real-Time News Pulse

MediumPulse.com: Your Source for Articles, Online News, and a Real-Time News Pulse

MediumPulse.com is an online news portal dedicated to delivering timely and insightful articles across a broad spectrum of topics.

In today's fast-paced world, staying informed is more crucial than ever. We're bombarded with information from various sources, making it challenging to sift through the noise and find what truly matters. Enter MediumPulse.com, a platform aiming to deliver a comprehensive blend of in-depth articles, up-to-the-minute online news, and a dynamic "News Pulse" feature designed to keep you connected to the heartbeat of current events.

MediumPulse.com positions itself as more than just another news aggregator. It strives to offer a curated experience, bringing together diverse perspectives and insightful analysis alongside breaking news. This approach caters to readers who want more than just headlines; they crave context and understanding.

A Multifaceted Approach to Information:

The platform's strength lies in its multi-pronged approach:

Articles: Beyond the daily headlines, MediumPulse.com features articles that delve deeper into specific topics. These pieces can range from investigative journalism and opinion pieces to feature stories and analyses of current trends. This focus on long-form content allows writers to explore complex issues with greater nuance, providing readers with a richer understanding of the world around them.

Online News Portal: For those seeking quick updates and breaking news, the online news portal section provides a constant stream of information. This dynamic section ensures readers stay abreast of the latest developments across various fields, from politics and business to technology and culture. The portal aims to deliver accurate and timely reporting, keeping users informed throughout the day.

News Pulse: Perhaps the most intriguing feature is the "News Pulse." This feature, likely a real-time or near real-time feed, aims to capture the trending topics and conversations happening at any given moment. It could potentially utilize algorithms and social media analysis to identify what people are talking about, providing a snapshot of the collective consciousness. This dynamic feature could offer a unique perspective on the news cycle, highlighting emerging stories and public sentiment.

Potential Benefits of Using MediumPulse.com:

Comprehensive Coverage: The combination of articles, news portal, and News Pulse offers a well-rounded approach to staying informed, catering to different reading habits and information needs.

Diverse Perspectives: A platform that encourages diverse voices can help readers gain a broader understanding of complex issues, challenging their own biases and fostering critical thinking.

Time Efficiency: By consolidating news and analysis in one place, MediumPulse.com can save readers valuable time and effort in their quest for information.

Real-Time Insights: The News Pulse feature, if implemented effectively, can provide valuable insights into trending topics and public sentiment, offering a unique perspective on current events.

Maintaining Objectivity: Ensuring unbiased reporting and presenting diverse perspectives is crucial for maintaining credibility.

Combating Misinformation: The spread of fake news is a significant concern, and platforms must have robust mechanisms in place to verify information and prevent the dissemination of false narratives.

Curating Quality Content: Balancing the need for timely updates with the importance of in-depth, well-researched articles is a delicate act.

Engaging the Audience: Building a loyal readership requires more than just providing information; it requires engaging with the audience and fostering a sense of community.

MediumPulse.com presents an interesting approach to online news consumption. By combining in-depth articles, a dynamic news portal, and a real-time News Pulse, the platform has the potential to become a valuable resource for those seeking to stay informed and engaged with the world around them. Its success will depend on its ability to deliver accurate, unbiased reporting, curate high-quality content, and foster a thriving community of readers. As the media landscape continues to evolve, platforms like MediumPulse.com play an important role in shaping how we access and understand the news.

MediumPulse.com is an online news portal that aims to provide updated knowledge and information across a variety of topics. It covers a wide range of categories, including world news, local news, business, technology, entertainment, sports, health, and lifestyle. The platform emphasizes delivering timely and relevant content through articles, analysis, opinion pieces, and multimedia resources.

Comprehensive Coverage: MediumPulse offers diverse content that caters to various interests, ensuring readers can find information on nearly any topic.

Real-Time Updates: The site prides itself on providing real-time news updates, allowing users to stay informed about the latest developments as they happen.

Credible Sources: MediumPulse is committed to journalistic integrity and accuracy, sourcing its information from reliable outlets to combat misinformation prevalent in today's media landscape.

User Engagement: The platform includes interactive features such as comment sections and polls, fostering community engagement among readers.

For those interested in staying updated with the latest articles and news, MediumPulse.com serves as a valuable resource, providing a real-time pulse on current events and diverse topics.

MediumPulse.com positions itself as a reliable source for updated news and knowledge in the digital age, catering to both casual readers and those seeking in-depth analysis across various fields.

DRT Landmark Judgement: DRT Judgements Favourable to Borrowers

DRT Landmark Judgement: DRT Judgements Favourable to Borrowers

Some landmark DRT (Debts Recovery Tribunal) judgments have been favorable to borrowers, offering them relief and protection against aggressive recovery measures by banks and financial institutions. These judgments have clarified important aspects of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act) and the SARFAESI Act, ensuring a balance between the rights of lenders and borrowers.

For instance, the Supreme Court, in a 2022 judgment, upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, which listed crucial guidelines for actions under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, safeguarding borrowers' rights during recovery proceedings.

Another significant judgment emphasized that civil courts can try suits filed by borrowers against banks/financial institutions, particularly in cases of fraud or misrepresentation. It also clarified that consent is required for transferring a suit from a civil court to a DRT.

These judgments, among others, have played a crucial role in protecting borrowers' interests and ensuring fair and transparent recovery processes. They have also helped to reduce the burden on DRTs by clarifying the jurisdiction of civil courts in certain matters.

It's important to note that each case is unique and the outcome depends on its specific facts and circumstances. While these landmark judgments provide important precedents, borrowers should always seek professional legal advice to understand their rights and options in their individual cases.

The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) plays a vital role in addressing and resolving cases related to non-performing assets (NPAs), helping banks and financial institutions recover their dues from defaulters. However, there have been several instances where the DRT’s rulings have been favorable to borrowers, often focusing on procedural fairness, adequacy of evidence, or the violation of borrowers' rights.

Some key landmark judgments from the DRT that favored borrowers include:

1. Indian Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank (2008)

Key Takeaway: The judgment clarified that financial institutions should follow due process when declaring loans as non-performing assets (NPAs). The borrower was allowed a chance to contest the NPA classification, and the DRT took into account the fact that procedural fairness had not been observed before taking severe actions like attaching assets.

2. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (2004)

Key Takeaway: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the SARFAESI Act (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002) that were deemed to be excessively harsh on borrowers. The court ruled that the borrower must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves before the bank takes action, ensuring the protection of their rights.

3. State Bank of India vs. M/s. K.K. Verma & Co. (2012)

Key Takeaway: The DRT ruled in favor of the borrower when the bank’s claim was found to be incomplete or inconsistent. The tribunal directed the bank to properly substantiate its claims before further proceedings could take place.

4. Bank of India vs. M/s. B.D. Agarwal & Co. (2001)

Key Takeaway: The judgment allowed the borrower a fair opportunity to make representations before the tribunal. The DRT took into account that the loan recovery proceedings had violated principles of natural justice by not providing the borrower a chance to negotiate a settlement or present counter-evidence.

5. Punjab National Bank vs. R.V. Mehta (2010)

Key Takeaway: In this case, the borrower was granted relief due to the improper valuation of assets. The tribunal highlighted that the valuation should reflect the fair market value and not an inflated figure, as this directly impacted the borrower's ability to settle dues.

6. Syndicate Bank vs. K. Rajendran (2009)

Key Takeaway: The borrower was granted relief from recovery proceedings as the DRT ruled that the bank had failed to provide proper communication regarding the debt. This ruling emphasized the importance of transparency in banking transactions.

7. M/s. D.P. Mahajan vs. State Bank of India (2012)

Key Takeaway: The DRT ruled in favor of the borrower by highlighting that the bank had acted arbitrarily in invoking the SARFAESI Act. The court observed that the lender failed to give sufficient time for the borrower to clear the dues.

8. Punjab National Bank vs. R. Prabhakar (2006)

Key Takeaway: In this case, the DRT ruled that the bank could not enforce its claim unless it had provided the borrower with a proper opportunity to resolve the dispute before initiating legal action.

Key Points of Borrower-Favorable DRT Rulings:

Procedural Fairness: The tribunals often rule in favor of borrowers when financial institutions fail to adhere to legal procedures and principles of natural justice.

Right to Representation: Many judgments highlight that borrowers must be given a fair chance to represent their case before any drastic action (like foreclosure or asset attachment) is taken.

Transparency and Evidence: Tribunals have ruled that financial institutions must present clear, consistent, and well-documented evidence to substantiate their claims.

Protection Against Harassment: DRT rulings have focused on preventing banks and lenders from taking undue advantage of legal provisions to harass or bypass the rights of borrowers.

In recent years, courts have become more attuned to ensuring that borrowers' rights are protected, especially when banks or financial institutions attempt aggressive recovery methods. These rulings balance the interests of the creditors with the need for fair treatment of borrowers.

DRT Landmark Judgments Favorable to Borrowers

The Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in India have been pivotal in adjudicating disputes between borrowers and financial institutions. Several landmark judgments have emerged that favor borrowers, clarifying their rights and the jurisdictional boundaries of DRTs.

Key Landmark Judgments

Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. HSBC

This Supreme Court ruling clarified that borrowers retain the right to file independent suits against banks in civil courts, which cannot be unilaterally transferred to DRTs as counterclaims. The court emphasized that a bar on civil court jurisdiction should not be readily inferred, preserving the borrower's right to appeal and sue independently.

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd.

This judgment addressed the transfer of civil suits to DRTs, establishing that such transfers require consent from the parties involved. The court ruled that parallel proceedings in civil courts and DRTs do not warrant a stay on DRT proceedings, reinforcing borrowers' rights to seek remedies without being constrained by the actions of banks.

Azmeer Business Pvt Ltd. v. Union Bank of India

In this case, the DRT set aside a bank's notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and ordered the restoration of property to the borrower, highlighting the tribunal's authority to protect borrowers from undue recovery actions.

KSFC v. N. Narasimahaih & Others

This judgment underscored constitutional and human rights considerations regarding guarantors' properties, affirming that DRTs must consider these aspects while adjudicating cases involving guarantors.

Gulshan Rai, Jain and Others v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

The Allahabad High Court ruled that applications under Sections 17 and 18 must be decided before any recovery action is initiated, ensuring that borrowers have an opportunity to contest recovery actions effectively.

These judgments collectively enhance the legal framework protecting borrowers' rights against aggressive recovery practices by banks and financial institutions. They clarify that:

Borrowers can pursue independent legal remedies in civil courts without automatic transfer to DRTs.

The consent requirement for transferring suits ensures borrowers are not forced into unfavorable forums.

Courts must consider broader rights, including constitutional protections for guarantors.

These rulings reflect a growing recognition of the need for a balanced approach in debt recovery processes, ensuring that borrowers are afforded fair opportunities to defend their interests.

Sarfaesi DRT Judgments by Supreme Court of India

Sarfaesi DRT Judgments by Supreme Court of India

DRT Landmark Judgement: DRT Judgements Favourable to Borrowers

1	English ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia  Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,K.V. VISWANATHAN 2004 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack (“ DRT ” for short) for recovery of dues in respect of the loans advanced to IGPL and Clarion Travels. In the proceedings before the DRT , IGPL and Clarion Travels reached a One- Time-Settlement (“OTS” for short) with the Bank, which was accepted, the loan account was declared as being closed vide letter dated 31st January 2011. In view of the OTS, the recovery proceedings pending before the DRT were disposed of as a full and final payment of the dues of the Bank vide orders dated 3rd May 2011. 3.10 Having settled the matter thus, Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/4114/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
2	Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,K.V. VISWANATHAN settled between the Bank and the accused persons in proceedings before DRT – Accused persons including the appellants sought quashing of the chargesheet filed by CBI before trial Court, rejected by High Court: Held: Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil Telangana and Anr. 3.3 To realize the outstanding amount, the respondent No. 2 Bank filed an Original Application being OA No. 253 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (“ DRT ” for short) for recovery of amounts due. 3.4 During the pendency of the proceedings before the DRT , Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/4113/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
3	Judge : HIMA KOHLI,AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH in ‘Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re’, reported as (2020) 19 SCC 10 24 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 305 25 2021 SCC Online NCLAT 622 26 For short ‘ DRT ’ 27 For short ‘NCLT Rules, 2016’ 28 For short ‘SARFAESI Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9059/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
4	Judge : ABHAY S. OKA,PANKAJ MITHAL also secured by the corporate guarantee dated 5th January 2011 furnished by ACIL. The financial creditor filed an Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata (for short, ‘the DRT ’) to recover the outstanding loan amount. On 24th March 2015, a “debt repayment and Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4565/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
5	Judge : J.B. PARDIWALA,MANOJ MISRA the Debt Recovery Tribunal – (I) (hereinafter, “ DRT ”) at Mumbai to proceed to decide the original application filed by the respondent no. 6. These proceedings before the DRT were relating to the Mortgage which came to be created by the appellant herein. The DRT declared the mortgage over the Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7254/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
6	English  नेपाली - Nepali ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : VIKRAM NATH,SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Appellants/ Original tenants in physical possession of premises – Appellants were issued sale certificate after auction- Bank admitted to procedural lapse – DRT aside sale and directed Bank to refund auction money with interest as applicable to fixed deposit only after receiving the possession of the premises – DRT found no proof of improvements/investments – DRAT and High Court confirmed. Held: Supreme Court upheld the setting aside of the Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/24155/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
7	English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,RAJESH BINDAL,SANDEEP MEHTA out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Cases related to recovery of dues of banks and auction sale – Exercise of power u/Art 226 by filing writ petition, in spite of availability of arising out of the DRT and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy – High Court interfered with the writ petition only on the ground that the matter was pending for sometime before it and if the petition not entertained, the Borrower would be left Decision Date : 10-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4845/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
8	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI [2024] 2 S.C.R. 315 Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi & Ors. at a fair market value and in a transparent manner. It appears that a series of litigations under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and High Court had ensued between the parties. 7. IHFL on 01.07.2021 ultimately sold the Decision Date : 13-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/843/2024
9	English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA,MANOJ MISRA the appellant returned the cheque and declined the said request vide its letter dated 06.04.2017. 14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent filed an application being SA No. 143 of 2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (“ DRT ”) assailing the appellant’s sale cancellation and letters dated 27.03.2017 and 06.04.2017 respectively. 15. During the pendency of the proceedings before the DRT as aforesaid a fresh auction of the Secured Asset was conducted by the appellant bank on 13.03.2019, and it appears that pursuant to the same the sale was completed at an Decision Date : 02-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/235/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
10	English हिन्दी - Hindi  नेपाली - Nepali ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,SUDHANSHU DHULIA,AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH the position of law on this point has been explained:- “116. The non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act give overriding eff ect to the provisions of those Acts only if there is anything inconsistent contained in any other or instrument having eff ect by virtue of any other law. In other words, if there is no provision in the other enactments which are inconsistent with the DRT Act or the Securitisation Act, the provisions contained in those Acts cannot override other legislations. Section 38-C of the Decision Date : 07-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6751/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
11	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,VIKRAM NATH 2015, could form subject matter of an application u/s.7 IBC; whether the the banks having approached the DRT , were barred under the doctrine of election from approaching the NCLT for recovery of same set of debts; and whether the date of default should go back to the date on which the proceedings – Doctrine of election – Application of – Plea of corporate debtor that the banks having approached the DRT , were barred under the doctrine of election from approaching the NCLT for recovery of same set of debts: Held: Doctrine of election embodied in the law of evidence, Decision Date : 18-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2348/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
12	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,BELA M. TRIVEDI Application No. 115 of 2019 on 30.06.2019, before the DRT for restraining the Appellant Bank from taking any further steps including the sale and confi rmation of sale in respect of the Subject Property, on the ground that the Bank- the secured creditor had failed to make proper valuation further with the proposed auction sale, pending the main application. The DRT Mumbai vide the order dated 11.11.2019 refused to grant the ad interim relief as prayed for in I.A. No. 822 of 2019. (vi) The Respondent no.1 being aggrieved by the said order passed by the DRT , preferred a Decision Date : 04-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1902/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : M.A. dismissed.
13	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA between April 2022 & June 2023, the Bank attempted eight auctions but all failed. 8. In the meantime, the borrowers preferred a Securitization Application being SA No. 46 of 2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (for short, “ DRT ”) inter alia challenging the demand notice issued Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also for quashing of the sale notice dated 25.03.22 in respect of the secured asset. It is not in dispute that the said application as on date is still pending before the DRT . 9. It appears that the borrowers informed the Bank that they were trying Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5542/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
14	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : VIKRAM NATH,AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH of the Limitation Act will have no application in the present case inasmuch as the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT cannot be said to be before a Court or Tribunal having no jurisdiction – Respondent No.2, being a Secured Creditor, would defi nitely have a right 252 20 1999 SCC Online Cal 58 21 In short, “SARFAESI Act” 591 d) Respondent No.2 fi led an Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ), Mumbai registered as Original Application No. 726 of 2014 on 03.06.2014. e) Corporate Debtor acknowledged their liability in the Decision Date : 12-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2085/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
15	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR 17 to approach the DRT – In view of the availability of the alternative statutory remedy available by way of proceedings/appeal u/s. 17, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition u/Art. 226 in which the e- auction notice was under challenge – Moreover, the favour of the respondent no. 1 with respect to Flat no.6401 was already held to be void by the DRT – If the respondent no. 1 would have approached the DRT against the e–auction notice he would have been non-suited in view of the earlier order passed by the DRT Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3152/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
16	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA concerned with the SARFAESI Act as such. The matter had travelled to the High Court from proceedings under the DRT Act. There was, thus, no occasion for the High Court to pronounce on the validity of section 16-B of the HPGST Act based on what was held by its coordinate Bench in M/s “guarantors”, hereafter). The loan account of the borrower became irregular. A recovery suit was instituted by PNB against the borrower and the guarantors for Rs. 42.29 lacs. Upon introduction of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity “ DRT Act”, Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8980/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
17	English বাংলা - Bengali हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,ARAVIND KUMAR parties – Financial defaults were committed by the respondent – Demand notice u/s. 13 of the SARFAESI Act was issued by appellant- bank – Demand remained unmet – Appellant declared that it had taken possession of the suit property – Respondent filed securitisation application before the DRT determination of the rights of the parties – On appeal, held: It is settled that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in respect of matters which a DRT or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine in respect of any action A B C D E F G H 859 taken “or to be taken in Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2924/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
18	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH difficulty being faced by parties on account of non-appointment of members in DRTs and DRATs. M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. v. NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.] A B C D E F G H 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. He requested that the matters before DRT availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
19	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi తెలుగు - Telugu  Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA the DRT for the extension of time to deposit the balance amount – DRT directed the Authorized officer to maintain status quo – In appeal, the DRAT permitted the Authorized Officer to proceed with fresh auction without, however, vacating the order of status quo passed earlier – Writ petition by 23rd October, 2017, as per the terms of rule 9(4). On facts, the contesting respondent was arranging for funds when he received the summons from the DRT on 10th October, 2017. It is, therefore, clear that at least till that date, the contesting respondent was lacking in financial Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2545/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
20	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi తెలుగు - Telugu  Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,J.B. PARDIWALA in the priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The IBC provides for designating the NCLT and the Debts Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) as the adjudicating authorities for corporate Decision Date : 15-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/172/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
21	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi తెలుగు - Telugu  Judge : M.R. SHAH,M.M. SUNDRESH property purchased by the appellant-auction purchaser – DRT confirmed the sale in favour of the appellant – In writ petition, the High Court set aside the e–auction and sale certificate – On appeal, held: High Court ought not to have entertained Writ Petition as there was a remedy of appeal DRAT – By entertaining the writ petition straightway under Art. 226/227 challenging the order passed by the DRT , the High Court allowed/permitted the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – There was no breach of r. Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7402/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
22	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi తెలుగు - Telugu  Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA date of the application. That the “debt” means any liability inclusive of interest. [Para 13][569-D-F] 1.2 An appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is permissible against the order passed by the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Under Section 17, the scope of enquiry is to the steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets. Therefore, whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the ‘debt Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8969/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
23	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI been decided by the DRT or Appellate Tribunal, s. 34 of the SARFAESI Act shall be applicable only in a case where the Debt [2022] 18 S.C.R. 696 696 A B C D E F G H 697 Recovery Tribunal and/or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to decide the matter under the SARFAESI Act – Finding recorded by the High Court that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the suit was for damages/ compensation, with respect to balance land, which could not have been decided by the DRT or Appellate Decision Date : 17-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7128/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
24	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,VIKRAM NATH and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB) – s. 19 – The appellant bank sanctioned a term loan to the respondent company, however, respondent failed to make the payment – Appellant filed an application for recovery of the amounts before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, ( DRT ) – Respondent to defend the proceedings, but in addition also filed a Civil Suit in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge on the finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction as the same exclusively vested with the DRT – However, on appeal the Division Bench of the High court restored Decision Date : 10-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8972/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
25	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI – Real Estate Project-Amrapali Group of companies – Applicant has filed I.A challenging the proceedings/order passed by DRT -III – Applicant had entered into agreement with the Amrapali Group for developing a colony on partnership basis – As per the agreement an entitlement of 40% of the share selling – The applicant was informed that his presence was required before the DRT -III, New Delhi to explain the details with regard to the project in pursuance of the writ petition filed against Amrapali Group – DRT - III by its order, directed the registry to issue a request letter which Decision Date : 07-11-2022 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
26	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) “5. In our opinion, the Decision Date : 14-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7170/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
27	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI borrower and secured creditor and/or between any other third party and aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings before DRT u/s. 17 – On facts, the High Court did not commit any error in [2022] 13 S.C.R. 437 437 A B C D E F G H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS any proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS v. PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED [M. R. SHAH, J.] A B C D E F G H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the steps taken Decision Date : 26-09-2022 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/16013/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
28	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) “5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by Decision Date : 20-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4956/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
29	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN the Corporate Debtor – Bank also filed application before DRT for issue of certificate of recovery, wherein by order dated 01.11.2016, the DRT directed the corporate debtor and others including respondent no. 1 to jointly and severally pay to the Bank – In a parallel proceeding, the High that the claim of the Financial Creditor was barred by limitation – On appeal, held: Order of the DRT in the Original Application filed by the Bank u/s. 19 of the Act, 1993, is dated 01.11.2016 – It is only thereafter that the Corporate Debtor issued Balance and Security Confirmation letter Decision Date : 30-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2277/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
30	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : N.V. RAMANA,J.K. MAHESHWARI,HIMA KOHLI Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Companies Act, 2013. These statutes provide for creation of multiple fora such as Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) and also improve Ease of Doing Business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating NCLT and DRT as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals, respectively, for resolution Decision Date : 26-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7722/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
31	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,J.K. MAHESHWARI settlement agreement on the basis of which such interest had been claimed. (viii) The High Court had, by its aforesaid order dated 19.10.2018, directed DRT to determine the interest payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant. Since no determination has been done by the DRT , the No.3 had been legally advised that the interest for the loans cannot be 22% as stated in the revoked settlement but 12.85% and that the rate of interest will be subject to the decision of the DRT , Mumbai. (ii) Financial Statement for 2015-2016 (Pages 19-30 of IA 125766), wherein similar Decision Date : 01-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/84/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
32	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,J.K. MAHESHWARI (BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies was handled by the High Courts. 47. The framework that had existed for insolvency and bankruptcy was inadequate, ineffective and resulted Decision Date : 12-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4633/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
33	English ગુજરાતી - Gujarati हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA referred to as the “Bank”) filed an O.A. bearing No. 424 of 1999 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “ DRT ”) on 25.05.2006 for recovery of debt and enforcement of security against the original respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (original borrowers). Recovery Mehsana got attached in pursuance of the above Recovery Order/Certificate. 2.3 A proclamation of sale of the properties came to be issued by the Recovery Officer, DRT on 28.11.2006 fixing the public auction on 08.01.2007. As per the proclamation of the sale, the amount due and payable was Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3469/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
34	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA not disputed that such orders were passed restraining the concerned respondents including Respondent No.3 and that the orders were passed in proceedings arising from O.A. No.766 of 2013 before DRT Bengaluru. The present proceedings before this court have also arisen from the very same O.A. Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/421/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
35	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,A.S. BOPANNA (“ DRT ” for short) for issuance of Debt Recovery Certificates in terms of the said compromise entered into between the parties. The said applications came to be allowed by the DRT vide orders dated 31st March, 2017 and 30th June, 2017, and separate Recovery Certificates dated 7th June, Counsel, on the contrary, submitted that the cause of action has merged into the order of issuance of the Recovery Certificate by the DRT and therefore, by application of the doctrine of merger, the debt no more survives. Shri Viswanathan further submitted that the initiation of CIRP by KMBL Decision Date : 30-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/689/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
36	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI by filing an application being SA No. 340/2018 before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the DRT ”). However, no stay was granted by the DRT in the said application. It is submitted that on the contrary, an order came to be passed on 29th October by the learned DRT , whereby confirmation of sale was stayed, subject to deposit of Rs.12 crore by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor failed to do so. After that, with mala fide intent, instead of making payment, a petition came to be filed under Section 10 of the IBC by the Decision Date : 18-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4750/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
37	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA not open for the Division Bench to pass an order permitting the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal and also make observations that any of the observations made by the DRT as well as by Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition shall be ignored and/or shall not 1993), the suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ), which was numbered as Transfer Application No. 95/1995. The DRT vide order dated 03.03.2000 decreed the said application and directed respondent No. 1 and the guarantors to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. Decision Date : 13-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4026/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
38	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,SURYA KANT same debt; one for the purpose of the DRT and another for the purpose of adjudication under the IBC. Finally, the NCLAT held that recourse to Section 18 of the Limitation Act was not available to the appellant. 7. In the present appeal, the appellant has appeared through Mr Niranjan Reddy, counsel, while Mr Shyam Divan, senior counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 7 2020 SCC Online NCLAT 417 (“V Padmakumar”) 8 “Limitation Act” 9 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 972 of 2020 10 “NCLAT” 11 “ DRT ” A B C D E F G H 1159 8. The NCLT placed reliance on Decision Date : 18-04-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/910/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
39	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA replied by Bank – However, thereafter the Recovery Officer dismissed the application and forfeited 10% of the amount deposited– Appeal filed by respondent no.1, dismissed by DRT – Appeal before DRAT, no interim relief granted – Respondent-Bank herein sought to put the property to considering the final decision of DRAT – Order passed by DRT confirming the order passed by the Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount deposited by the auction purchaser was yet to be decided by DRAT – Main appeal was yet to be decided by DRAT on merits – High Court made the proceedings Decision Date : 16-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1302/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
40	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act before DRT – DRT passed interim order directing release / handover of possession of the mortgaged property to the borrower on deposit of Rs.48.65 lakhs – Bank filed appeal before DRAT which was dismissed – Single Judge of High Court set aside the passed by DRT & DRAT on ground that the orders were in contravention of s.13(8) of SARFAESI Act – Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge and directed the bank to release the secured property (residential house) on the borrower depositing a further sum of Rs.17 lakhs to the bank Decision Date : 10-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/363/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
41	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] A B C D E F G H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R. DRT to secure its interest. Based on this, vide order dated 13.12.2013, the DRT had directed that the amount to be returned to KOFL be attached so that the banks have Decision Date : 17-01-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5766/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
42	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,SANJIV KHANNA,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. petition before DRT challenging the enforcement proceedings in respect of the subject property including all steps taken right from issue of notice under s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act – DRT dismissed borrower’s application – Decision Date : 03-12-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7372/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
43	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA questions required to be dealt with by the DRT in the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act – Assignee has already initiated the proceedings u/s.13 which can be challenged by the appellant – Thus, the High Court justified in rejecting plaint/dismissing the suit in view of bar u/s.34 of and/or whether any amount is due and payable by the plaintiff, are all questions which are required to be dealt ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED v. UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. A B C D E F G H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. with and considered by the DRT Decision Date : 26-11-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6669/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
44	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA recover the decretal amount in accordance with provisions of s.25 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act – Appeal No.1/2020 pending consideration by Debts Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ), Jaipur – According to respondent no.1 approximately a sum of Rs.29 crores was due and payable by appellant Viswanathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 herein. 5. It is not in dispute that Appeal No.1/2020 is pending consideration by the Debts Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ), Jaipur. However, at the same time, according to respondent no.1 herein approximately a sum of Decision Date : 27-10-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6518/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
45	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,HRISHIKESH ROY,C.T. RAVIKUMAR submission thus is that the Tribunal does not have any inherent powers. 10.2 Similarly, Justice S.H. Kapadia (as his Lordship then was) in Transcore Vs. Union of India3, opined on behalf of a Division Bench that, “ 67. ...The DRT is a tribunal, it is the creature of the statute, it has no Decision Date : 07-10-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/12122/2018 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Legal issue answered
46	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,B.V. NAGARATHNA application of Appellants and Respondent No. 2 to 4, DRT vide order dated 27.02. 2012 granted interim stay for 30 days on the sale subject to the deposit of the 50% of outstanding amount – On 28.03.2012 one of the mortgaged properties was sold by the Bank through a private treaty for Rs. 12.25 entitled – DRT set aside the Second Sale Notice and the consequent sale of mortgaged [2021] 13 S.C.R.1096 1096 A B C D E F G H 1097 properties – Directed Respondent-Bank to refund the amount paid by auction purchaser along with 10% Interest and refund of surplus sum of Rs. 4.48 Decision Date : 23-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5920/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
47	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,KRISHNA MURARI provides for the right of appeal to any person including the borrower to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ). Section 17 has been amended by Act No. 44 of 2016 providing for challenging the A B C D E F G H 533 measures to recover secured debts (for short, “the Amendment”). tenant claiming under the borrower. In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra2 this Court has held that DRT can not only set aside the action of the secured creditor but even restore the status quo ante. Therefore, an alternative remedy was available to the appellant to challenge Decision Date : 17-08-2021 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/843/2021 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
48	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Delhi (‘ DRT -III’ for short), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the DRT -III declined to grant any interim relief against the physical possession of the aforesaid properties. (iv) The petitioners filed an appeal but could not deposit Rs. 7 crores being 25% of the amount demanded the notice under Section 13(2). Eventually the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.03.2015. (v) However, on 01st April, 2015, the petitioners secured a conditional order of stay from DRT -III, New Delhi in S.A. No. 367/ 2014 whereby the petitioners were required to deposit a sum of Rs. Decision Date : 09-08-2021 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/28592/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
49	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years –Recovery order by the DRT and the recovery certificate issued in favour of the Bank in 2017 gave a fresh cause of action to the Bank to initiate a petition u/s. 7 – Offer of one time settlement of filed an application in the NCLT, for permission to place additional documents on record including the final judgment and order/decree dated 27.3.2017 and the Recovery Certificate dated 25.5.2017, enabling the Appellant Bank to recover Rs.52 crores odd. The judgment and order/decree of the DRT Decision Date : 04-08-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1650/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
50	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,S. RAVINDRA BHAT against the personal guarantor in a court or tribunal and a resolution process or liquidation is initiated against the corporate debtor. Thus if A, an individual is the subject of a resolution process before the DRT and he has furnished a personal guarantee for a debt owed by a company B, in event a resolution process is initiated against B in an NCLT, the provision results in transferring the proceedings going on against A in the DRT to NCLT. [Para 95][1156-C-F] 6. The non-obstante provision under Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over other prevailing enactments. This Decision Date : 21-05-2021 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/245/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
51	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,HRISHIKESH ROY to the proceedings under the Code, as far as may be applicable. For, Section 238A predicates that the provisions of Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLAT, the DRT or the Debt Recovery Appellate Decision Date : 15-04-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/323/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
52	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,KRISHNA MURARI For, Section 238A predicates that the provisions of Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLAT, the DRT or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. After enactment of Section 238A of the Code and acknowledged the debt time and again, lastly on 8.12.2018 and thus the application filed on 13.2.2019 was within limitation. 6 for short, “the 1993 Act” 7 for short, “ DRT ” 8 for short, “the CIRP” 9 for short, the “Adjudicating Authority” or “NCLT”, as the case may be. LAXMI PAT SURANA Decision Date : 26-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2734/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
53	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,HEMANT GUPTA be civil proceedings in a Court – Moreover, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act under s.13(4) are appealable to the DRT under s.18 of the SARFAESI Act – Argument that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would not qualify for exclusion under s.14 of the Limitation Act, because and bankruptcy would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also ease business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. The IBC seeks to designate the NCLT and DRT as the Adjudicating Authorities for resolution Decision Date : 22-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9198/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
54	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.A. BOBDE,A.S. BOPANNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN be permissible, but not entire waiver – When further amount is due and payable in discharge of decree/recovery certificate issued by DRT , the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion against the mandatory requirement projected the case to indicate that the recovery certificate ordered by the DRT is for the sum of Rs.145 Crores with interest at 9% per annum and the amount realised by the Bank from the compensation amount payable to respondent No.3 is itself a sum of Rs.152,81,07,159/- and as such there Decision Date : 16-02-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/538/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
55	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,SANJIV KHANNA for recovery of dues – A settlement was reached between the Assignor Bank and the corporate debtor – Accordingly, DRT issued a Recovery Certificate on 27.03.2003 – Corporate debtor again failed to comply with the settlement – Thereafter, an agreement between the Assignor Bank and the appellant entered into, the appellant was substituted as applicant in place of the Assignor Bank in DRT and an amended Recovery Certificate was issued on 13.12.2012 – On 27.07.2018, the appellant filed application u/s. 7 of the IBC against the corporate debtor for initiation of Corporate Decision Date : 21-01-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4221/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
56	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,K.M. JOSEPH,KRISHNA MURARI Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and insolvency is dealt with under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also improve Ease of Doing Business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating NCLT and DRT as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms Decision Date : 15-12-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4041/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
57	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,AJAY RASTOGI,HEMANT GUPTA without examining the context and scheme of the statute may not serve the purpose of the statute. [Para 7] [1004-B-D] 2. The DRT Act was first enacted to streamline the recovery of public dues but the proceedings under the said Act have not given desirous results. Therefore, the Act this Court4. This Court observed that when Civil Courts failed to expeditiously decide suits filed by the banks, the DRT Act was enacted, however it did not provide for assignment of debts to Securitisation companies. The Act which was enacted thereafter in 2002 sought to further empower Decision Date : 05-11-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3441/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
58	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,ASHOK BHUSHAN In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners (‘banks’, for short) before DRT , Bengaluru seeking recovery of Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine and Paise Thirty Two an oral undertaking was given on 26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they would not alienate or dispose of their properties. One of the prayers made before DRT , Bengaluru was:- “(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US$ 75 million,…” (B) Decision Date : 31-08-2020 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)/2175/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
59	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI advances and facilities, its account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 08.07.2011 – Recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders u/s.19 of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 before the DRT was started – On or proceedings were pending before DRT , on or about 21.03.2018, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the Code, in Form 1 as provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 201614, for initiation of CIRP Decision Date : 14-08-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6347/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
60	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI DRT – Respondent no. 3-borrower had availed of financial credit from the bank, for which the respondent no. 2-guarantor had offered its immovable property by way of mortgage to the Bank – The borrower committed default – The bank filed O.A. No. 11/2008 before the DRT – Thereafter, symbolic possession of the secured assets – The guarantor filed a petition challenging the possession notice by the bank, which came to be rejected by the DRT – The secured assets were auctioned and a sale certificate in respect of the secured assets was issued to the appellant – Before the Decision Date : 24-04-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2373/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
61	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA 2011 before DRT , New Delhi and the same was decreed by DRT and SHYAM SAHNI v. ARJUN PRAKASH AND ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] A B C D E F G H 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. RC No.172/2012 was issued by the Bank of India and the recovery proceedings are still going jurisdiction of the DRT for recovery of the Bank SHYAM SAHNI v. ARJUN PRAKASH AND ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] A B C D E F G H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. dues when the Bank of India is not made a party to the suit. It was further submitted that there is already an order of Decision Date : 19-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2210/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
62	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : DEEPAK GUPTA,ANIRUDDHA BOSE petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) for recovery of US $1,400,000. Those proceedings are being contested by the Bank of Baroda and it appears that the proceedings before the DRT are still pending and we make it clear that anything said by us in this appeal will not affect Decision Date : 17-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/17/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
63	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,HRISHIKESH ROY the parties to adduce evidence. Further in respect of post take over period a Suit No.4489/96 was filed which was transferred to DRT and registered as O.A.No.1114/2000 which has remained pending as respondent No.2 had proceeded to BIFR. In that circumstance if the appellant herein had chosen the DRT , Mumbai and is stated to be adjourned sine die. The said proceedings shall now stand revived. In the said recovery proceedings in R.C.No.269/2004 the appellant is permitted to bring on record the respondents. The respondents are reserved the liberty of putting forth Decision Date : 05-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2046/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
64	English हिन्दी - Hindi ಕನ್ನಡ - Kannada ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R. BANUMATHI,S. ABDUL NAZEER,A.S. BOPANNA Tribunal ( DRT ) for delay – Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dismissed appeal– Respondent no.2 filed complaint u/s.200, CrPC against appellants who were working as Deputy General Managers in the Bank (accused no.1) alleging connivance with auction purchaser which caused wrongful loss to him – FIR of classifying the account as NPA or in the manner in which the property was valued/auctioned, the DRT is vested with power to set aside such auction at the stage after the secured creditor invokes power u/s.13 – Though in the instant case the application filed by Complainant before DRT Decision Date : 03-03-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/377/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
65	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,INDIRA BANERJEE,M.R. SHAH created a equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds – The original borrower failed to repay the loan amount – The DRT proceeded ex- parte against the Guarnator and directed the principal borrower, its partners and the Guarantor pay the sum of the term loan with interest – The Guarantor filed I.A. in 2008 against the order of the DRT , for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 27.8.2003, however, the same was dismissed – After seven years from the date of the decree dated 27.8.2003 passed by the DRT , the respondents-plaintiffs filed two suits to declare the order dated 27.8.2003 Decision Date : 28-02-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1863/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
66	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN respondent- Company, a sum of Rs. 222,51,00,000/- was owed by the respondent – The said I.A. was allowed by DRT – The respondent filed an appeal against the said order before the DRAT – While pending appeal, a review application was filed by the respondent before the DRT – Thereafter, the appeal earlier was withdrawn – Meanwhile, an application was filed to condone a delay of 28 days in filing the review petition before the DRT – Application was dismissed by the DRT – Writ Petition – The High Court held that no appeal would be maintainable against the dismissal of the review Decision Date : 21-01-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/501/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
67	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,KRISHNA MURARI follows: “126. While enacting the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act, Parliament was aware of the law laid down by this Court wherein priority of the State dues was recognized. If Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of banks, financial institutions, or other secured creditors on Decision Date : 04-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/232/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
68	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN jurisdiction and powers of NCLT – In contrast, Sub-sections (4) and (5) of s.60 of IBC, 2016 give an indication respectively about the powers and jurisdiction of the NCLT – Sub-section (4) of s.60 of IBC, 2016 states that the NCLT will have all the powers of the DRT as contemplated under Part III of Code for the purposes of Sub- section (2) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.60. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: ss.60, 179 – Under s.179 (1), it is the DRT which is the Adjudicating Authority in relation to insolvency matters of individuals and firms – This is in contrast to Decision Date : 03-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9170/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
69	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,AJAY RASTOGI the interest of all creditors – Clearly, the submission for the Petitioner that the winding up petition deserves to be dismissed as all creditors of KOFL have been satisfied is belied by the existence of the proceedings before the DRT – The records showed that the settlement of dues was winding up petitions, it appears that the secured creditors of KOFL were constrained to approach the DRT for recovery of their dues by filing O.A. Further, upon learning of the decision of the Company Judge dismissing the winding up petition, one of the secured IDBI BANK LTD. THR. DGM(LEGAL) Decision Date : 17-10-2019 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/33825/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
70	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ARUN MISHRA,M.R. SHAH,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI creation of multiple fora such as Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating NCLT and DRT as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals, respectively, for resolution of insolvency, liquidation Decision Date : 04-10-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5120/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
71	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI adverting to the statement of objects and reasons of the 2002 Act, opined that the secured creditor is not required to obtain a decree from a competent Court/ DRT before being entitled to take steps for the purpose of enforcement of recovery in relation to the secured THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK Decision Date : 23-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6295/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
72	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : N.V. RAMANA,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,INDIRA BANERJEE Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ DRT ”). In Harshad Govardhan Case (supra) this Court held that the right of appeal is available to the tenant claiming under a borrower, however the right of re-possession does not exist with the tenant. However, in Kanaiyalal Sachdev and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 782, this Court held that the DRT can, not only set aside the action of the secured creditor, but even restore the status quo ante. We do not intend to express any view on this issue since it is not relevant for the disposal Decision Date : 11-09-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1371/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
73	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,VINEET SARAN satisfied on appropriation of sale proceeds of secured assets. The lead Bank has already filed suit for the recovery of Rs.129.47 crores, which is pending adjudication before the DRT . While the borrower/guarantors have a right to contest the bank’s claim before the DRT , it is highly decretal amount. However, in the event of dismissal of such suit, with a finding that the borrower or the guarantors are no longer under any liability, the amount so deposited by them can be refunded to them. Since all these issues are yet to be adjudicated by the DRT , we are of the view Decision Date : 20-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6016/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
74	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI redemption – Loan taken by appellants from respondent Bank – In view of default in discharging the loan by appellants, respondent Bank exercised its power under s.13(4) and took over constructive possession of mortgaged property – Appellant filed applications before DRT which, however, and closed both the loan accounts – On 6.1.2006, respondent bank issued a sale certificate in favour of respondent no.3 – Appellant filed applications for restoration of the main proceedings before DRT which was dismissed – Appellants thereafter forwarded demand drafts in the name of Decision Date : 20-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8097/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
75	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ARUN MISHRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT Various applications are being filed one after the other by the encumbered holders with respect to several properties that they have the charge over the said property. [Para 129] [570-A-E] 4.14 That apart, several attached properties have been put to sale by DRT under the orders of this Court. Decision Date : 23-07-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed not complying condition order | Direction Issue : Directions issued
76	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI 2017, on the finding that there was no bar from entertaining civil suit(s) in respect of any other matter which is outside the scope of matters required to be determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “ DRT ”) constituted under 2002 Act. The learned Single Judge held that the facts the dictum in the concerned judgment on the principle underlying the exposition in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation7 to the effect that the DRT and also the appellate authority cannot pass a decree nor it is open to it to enter Decision Date : 01-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5126/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
77	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.A. BOBDE,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,INDIRA BANERJEE pension – Interruption in service – Appellant working as law officer in respondent-bank (parent department) went on deputation to the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) – During the period of deputation, he applied for the post of Presiding Officer at DRT – Respondent- bank forwarded ‘No but bank sent no response to his letter – DRT released the appellant and then he took over charge as Presiding officer – After eleven months, respondent-bank asked the appellant to resign from the service of bank – After some communications, appellant tendered his resignation which was accepted Decision Date : 30-04-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4489/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
78	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,VINEET SARAN Rohini and alleged clients in the open Court Hall of DRT I, II, III and that to the extent that the smooth functioning of the Tribunal has come to halt and justice delivery system has got obstructed. They have willingly and intentionally created this scenario in the open court with ulterior Officer of DRT I, Mumbai in this regard. We are apprehending that this kind of bad and turbulent situation may again take place and working of the Tribunals may be disturbed. Considering the dimension and seriousness of the situation we all felt that this situation may be adverted by Decision Date : 12-03-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/191/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
79	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,DINESH MAHESHWARI that Respondent No.2 - Indian Bank had given business loan to Respondent No.1- Company, which they failed to repay to the Indian Bank. The Indian Bank (R-2), therefore, filed a claim petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “the DRT ) at Calcutta against Respondent No.1-Company recovery of their unpaid loan amount with interest. 9. By order dated 04.03.2003, the DRT allowed the claim petition and ordered for sale of the properties of Respondent No.1-Company after giving due publicity. The DRT also appointed one Receiver to take appropriate steps in this regard. Decision Date : 14-02-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5360/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
80	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA creditor has obtained an order from the DRT , and a recovery certificate has been issued thereupon, such secured creditor cannot file a winding up petition as the Recovery of Debts Act is a special Act which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the DRT . Also, a secured creditor can file a winding before us. He first argued that this Court has held that the Recovery of Debts Act is a special statute qua the general statute of the Companies Act, 1956, and that this Court has further held that exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the DRT under the Recovery of Debts Act to the exclusion Decision Date : 29-01-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1291/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
81	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA 13(4) have been taken so as to enable the borrower to approach DRT and in such an eventuality, the DRT shall have a jurisdiction to pass any order/interim order, may be subject to conditions, on the application under Section 17(1) of the Act. (f) The scheme of relevant provisions of the and the Rules shows that the Bank/FIs have been conferred with powers to take physical (actual) possession of the secured assets without interference of the Court and the only remedy open to the borrower is to approach DRT challenging such an action/measure and seeking appropriate Decision Date : 01-11-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10873/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
82	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN Lucknow Bench stays the release of petitioner, having regard to the enhanced age of retirement in the writ petition filed by him. 09.12.2016 The Bombay High Court dismissed WP(L) No. 3299/2016 filed by Vasant Narayan Lothey Patel, Presiding Officer, DRT III, Mumbai, whereby the said proceedings before the courts concerned. 14.11.2017 This Court allowed all six transfer petitions (TP(C) Nos. 1315-1320/2017) and also passed an interim order reinstating Mohd. Zafar Imam as Presiding Officer, DRT II, Mumbai. 26.12.2019 The petitioner will be completing the age of 65 Decision Date : 07-09-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/732/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
83	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR agricultural in nature. The DRT rejected the objection of the debtor that the land was agricultural. In appeal, the DRAT reversed that finding. Apart from referring to the position in law, the impugned judgment of the High Court contains no discussion of the material which was relied upon by Tribunal ( DRT -III) at Chennai and renumbered as T.A. No. 93 of 2007. On 11 June 2010, DRT -III allowed the claim of the Bank in the amount of Rs. 31,00,238/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum. A recovery certificate was issued on 10 February 2011in the amount of Rs. 74,31,233.14/-. On Decision Date : 20-07-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6641/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
84	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.34 – Equitable mortgage created by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the subject flat in favour of appellant-bank – Failure to repay the loan amount – Claim for title over the subject flat by respondent no.5 and 6 (writ petitioners) – DRT and of civil suit – For, no civil court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or DRAT is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction can be granted by any Court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be Decision Date : 17-05-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5248/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
85	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,R.F. NARIMAN son, stood as a guarantor for repayment of the said facility. As respondent No.1 defaulted in repayment of a sum of Rs.53,49,970.22, the petitioner bank filed O.A. No. 440 of 2002 before the DRT Bangalore, against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1, in order to repay the dues of the jurisdiction to entertain the suits, despite the pendency of DRT proceedings. The bank’s suit came to be dismissed. The ultimate order passed in the two suits is as follows: “O.S. 2832/2004 is hereby decreed in part, granting a relief in favour of the plaintiff as against the 1st Decision Date : 20-04-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4233/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
86	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,R. BANUMATHI Bank (later Federal Bank Ltd.) and the bank had initiated recovery proceedings, namely, O.S. No.40 of 1996 before 3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai which was later transferred to DRT , Coimbatore and renumbered as Transfer Application No.1441 of 2002. B. On 30.06.2000 the appellant entered into of 2002 was preferred by respondent No.1 to implead himself in the Transfer Application No.1441 of 2002 before DRT , Coimbatore. In his reply telegram dated 03.09.2002 appellant denied all the assertions made by the advocate for respondent No.1 and cancelled the agreement dated 20.09.2000. Decision Date : 28-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3353/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
87	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : R.K. AGRAWAL,R. BANUMATHI against Pravinchandra Patel, M/s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited and others. In the said proceeding before DRT , Anilkumar Patel has referred to the arbitration award passed in July, 1996 and that he has no interest in M/s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Limited. Based on such stand taken by Anilkumar Patel in O.A.No.298-A/2001, DRT observed that Anilkumar Patel had resigned from the Directorship of the said company and exonerated him from the liability to the bank and dismissed O.A.No.298-A/2001 against Anilkumar Patel and Decision Date : 27-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3313/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
88	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.A. BOBDE,L. NAGESWARA RAO The debtor filed a securitization application6 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT ’) against the taking over of the symbolic possession by the creditor. In the meanwhile, the creditor published the first auction sale notice7 with a reserve price of Rs. 403 which came to be postponed in view of the negotiations between the parties for the repayment of the dues. Upon default in the repayment of the outstanding amount, a second sale notice was published on 09.01.2014 with the same reserve price. The DRT passed an interim order,8 directing the Decision Date : 19-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2928/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
89	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR sale or transfer that the secured asset is not to be sold or transferred. The appellant was aware of the proceedings initiated by the bank for asserting its right to recover its dues by selling the property. The appellant moved the DRT in Securitization Application. During the pendency of deposit the amount of Rs 2,00,000 as against the dues of Rs.36 lakhs. This was not acceptable. The proceedings before the DRT were listed on 1 February 2016 during the course of which the appellant stated that he would move a redemption application within three days. The Decision Date : 06-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/148/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
90	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN On analysing the above provisions of the DRT Act, we find that the said Act is a complete code by itself as far as recovery of debt is concerned. It provides for various modes of recovery. It incorporates even the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, Therefore, the debt due under the recovery certificate can be recovered in various ways. The remedies mentioned therein are complementary to each other. The DRT Act provides for adjudication. It provides for adjudication of disputes as far as the debt due is concerned. It covers secured as well Decision Date : 23-02-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/18/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
91	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR February 2018. DRT and DRAT 8. For the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the chart submitted by the learned Attorney General indicates that the selection process has been completed and appointments of Presiding officers have been made. This being the position, the selection process in respect of DRT shall not be affected. In respect of the DRAT also, the selection process has been completed and will hence be taken to its logical conclusion. CAT 9. In respect of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the chart submitted by the learned Attorney General indicates that after Decision Date : 22-02-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/279/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
92	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA realise long term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’) with passage of time, had become synonymous those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspects have not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order. 10. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was held in Punjab National Bank Decision Date : 30-01-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1281/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
93	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R. BANUMATHI after pursuing the matter before DRT , DRAT and High Court, sought arbitration before Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Facilitation (MSMEDF) Council - Award passed by MSMEDF Council directing the Bank to pay Rs.J,62,82,0791- with interest @ 24% to first respondent - Upheld F by the charges for security 0 sen1ices to the first respondent - Bank was under no obligation to pay the charges to the first respondent in any case after 24.07.2008(order of DRT ) - High Court was not right in saying that DRT had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and, thus, the order Decision Date : 05-12-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5150/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
94	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : R.K. AGRAWAL,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE Act, 2002 - ss.17 and 13 (4) - C Auction purchaser challimging the action of the secured creditor in foifeiting the deposit -Appropriate remedy- Filing q( an application uls.17 before the DRT or writ petition u!Art.2261227 - Held: Reading of s.17(2) and r. 9(5) clear(v show that an action within the expression "any person" as specified u!s. 17(1) and thus, enritled 10 challenge the action of the secured creditor before the DRT by jl/ing an applicalion uls.17(1) - Security Interest E F G H (Enforcement} Rules, 2002 - rt: 8 and 9 - Constitution of India - Art. Decision Date : 27-11-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/19847/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
95	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL not apply. In the present case, as stated above. the NPA Act is an additional remedy to the DRT Act. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Even according to Snell s Principles of Equity (31st Edn., p. 119), the doctrine of election Decision Date : 21-09-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/15147/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
96	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL multiple fora such as Board oflndustrial and Financial Reconstruction (BlFR), Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is F handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and insolvency is dealt economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating the NCLT and DRT as the Adjudicating Authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals, respectively, for resolution of insolvency, liquidation and bankruptcy. The Code separates commercial aspects Decision Date : 31-08-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8337/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
97	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,UDAY UMESH LALIT Tribunal ( DRT ) - Seeking recovery of thousands of crores of rupees - Filed by consortium of Banks - Against the Respondents debtors/Guarantors - Respondent Nos. JO and 11 had disclosed that respondent No. 3 (Guarantor) would be paid a sum of US$ 75 million by responde11t No. JO and D out of said amount, a sum of US $ 40 million would be paid to the Banks immediately (The amount of US$ 40 million was received by respondent No. 3 on 25. 02. 2016) - The Banks moved interlocutory applications before DRT (1) to freeze passport of respondent No. 3 (2) to issue arrest warrant against Decision Date : 09-05-2017 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/6828/2016 | Disposal Nature : Hearing Adjourned
98	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ARUN MISHRA,S. ABDUL NAZEER entered into, the property was unencumbered and was not under mortgage with HUDCO. Thus agreement with regard to 21 acres was not interdicted by interim order of DRT . Thus SGS Constructions by making a huge payment of Rs.9 crores had acquired a right over the said unencumbered property. Thus Tribunal, New Delhi (for short " DRT "). Maharaji Educational Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Educational Trust") had taken a loan of approximately Rs. 75 crores from Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (for short B 'HUDCO') and mortgaged properties Nos. l to 6. The Trust Decision Date : 08-05-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6463/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
99	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : R.K. AGRAWAL,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL C Company borrowed a sum of Rs. 900 lakhs from consortium of Banks led by State Bank of Travancore (SBT) - Non-payment of loan by respondent - Recovery proceedings by SBT before DRT , partially decreed - However, SBT assigned the debt due from respondent to Kotak Mahindra before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ), Mumbai. On 22.07.2005, the DRT passed a partial decree awarding a sum of Rs. 812.26 lakhs with 12 per G cent interest. (b) On 29.03.2006, the State Bank ofTravancore assigned the debts due from the complainant-Company to the Kotak Mahindra Bank Decision Date : 21-03-2017 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2285/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
100	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,ASHOK BHUSHAN Tribunal ( DRT ), Bangalore. A B c D E F G H 454 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. 38. The High Court, while granting the leave to the State Bank of Mysore passed an order that no coercive steps are to be taken against the assets of the company or after the G conclusion of proceedings before DRT , Bangalore. H 40. It appears that in the recovery proceedings, the assets were auctioned and Anita Internationals were the auction purchaser. The issue was raised before the High Court that in view of the order of Madras High Court dated Decision Date : 07-12-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11886/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
101	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE and Financial Institutions, Act 1993 (for short the " DRT Act") and also the Act of 2002 must be understood by noticing the absence ofany specific provision in either of 0 the Central enactments containing a similar/parallel provision of a first charge in favour of the bank. The judgment of Decision Date : 25-11-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11247/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
102	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : ANIL R. DAVE,L. NAGESWARA RAO 34 - Suit against proceedings initiated uls. 13(4) - lnvolving debt less C than Rs. 10 lakhs - Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of bar u!s. 34 or is it maintainable in view of s. 1 (4) of DRT Act which debars the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of debts below Rs. JO - Held: The jurisdiction of civil court is barred in respect of action taken under the SARFAESl Act and the remedy available is before the Tribunal under DRT Act - As per s. I (4) of DRT Act, D provisions of DRT Act would not apply where the amount of debt is less than Rs. JO /akhs - But Decision Date : 08-11-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/210/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
103	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : J.S. KHEHAR,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL application filed by the Bank, the prayer made was, thaf the Bank be permitted leave to proceed with recovery proceedings before the DRT . By the order dated 10.3.2000, the Company Court in the High Court at Madras, while granting leave, imposed two conditions. Firstly, the Official Liquidator have to be impleaded by the bank in the recovery proceedings before the DRT . And secondly, no coercive steps would be taken against the assets of the company during or after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribu1.ial. It cannot be said that the aforesaid order passed by the Decision Date : 04-07-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6042/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
104	English ગુજરાતી - Gujarati हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Any person aggrieved by the order of the DRT under Section 17 of the F SARFAESI Act, is entitled to prefer an appeal along with the prescribed fee within the permitted period of 30 days. For 'preferring' an appeal, a fee is whereas for the Tribunal to 'entertain' the appeal, the aggrieved person has to make a deposit of fifty 11er cent of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the G DRT , whichever is less. This amount can, at the discretion of the Tribunal, Decision Date : 22-04-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4379/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
105	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN the SICA o;verrides the provisions of the DRT Act - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( DRT Act) - ss. 17, 18 and 34. ' 419 A • B c D E F G H 420 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 11 S.C.R. Sick the Delhi High Court B stayed both the orders, which stay continued until 24.7.2008, when, by the impugtied judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 5. Meanwhile, the sale notice of8.8.2003. was challenged before the DRT by the appellants. The said challenge was unsuccessful, as a C Decision Date : 29-01-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/614/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
106	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : V. GOPALA GOWDA,AMITAVA ROY extend to the laws operating in the same field. Interpreting the non obstante clause of the SARFAESI Act, a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Central Ba11k 1if India v. State of Kera/a & Ors.'" has held as under: "18. The DRT Act and Securitisation Act were enacted by Parliament securitisation and '" 12009) 4 sec 94 VISHAL N. KALSARIA v. BANK OF !NOIA & ORS. 443 [Y. GOPALA GOWDA, .1.) empowering the banks etc. to take possession of the securities A and sell them without inte1'vention of the Court. xxx xxx xxx 110. The DRT Act facilitated establishment of Decision Date : 20-01-2016 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/52/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
107	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH against Megnostarwas allowed by DRT -11, Delhi on 13.07.2010 holding the company liable to pay to the bank Rs.12.95 crores approx. with pendente lite and future interest @ 15.5. % p.a. with quarterly interests from date of filing of O.A. till date of C realization. To realize its dues, Decision Date : 29-12-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3646/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
108	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : JASTI CHELAMESWAR,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE further orders. In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser filed the applications H 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A seeking vacation of the Interim orders. On 22.01.2007, the interim order was vacated by the DRT in the absence of the appellant. Thus, the guarantor continued possession till 31.1.2007. The auction purchaser moved an application on 01.02.2007 for recalling the order dated 22.01.2007: On B 5.02.2007, the High Court LokAdalatpermitted the appellant to request the DRT to defer the proceedings. An application made in this regard was dismissed on Decision Date : 28-04-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4043/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
109	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : H.L. DATTU,S.A. BOBDE,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE served. On 15.07.03, an ex-parte final order in favour of IDBI for recovery of above mentioned sum C i.e. Rs. 25,26,60,836/- along with interest@ 7.8% p.a. was passed by DRT . ORT expressly directed that in the event of failure on the part of the Company to pay the decretal amount, IDBI will the properties of the company but creditors may continue to apply for recovery before the DRT . We do not think that such an ,anomalous purpose can be attributed to Parliament in the present legislative scheme. E Though there is no doubt that Parliament may expressly bring about such a Decision Date : 27-10-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5225/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
110	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,S.A. BOBDE Act before the DRT for a recovery certificate against the respondent for Rs. 8,62,41,973.36/-. Though the respondent entered appearance before the DRT , G it filed Civil Suit No. 77of1998 before the Calcutta High Court against the appellant claiming a decree for sale of pledged shares and did not have jurisdiction since the subject matte~ was within B c the exclusive jurisdiction of the DRT . The Single Judge allowed that application and directed that the suits be taken off from D the file of the High Court. The Division Bench stayed operation of the Order of the Single Decision Date : 17-09-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8972/2014 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
111	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.S. NIJJAR,A.K. SIKRI This appeal was dismissed by the DRT on 5.7.2007 with the observations that the borrower was only adopting dilatory E tactics. This order was challenged by the borrower in the form of writ petition filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. The learned Single Judge the reasoning given by the DRT and dismissed the Writ Petition vide orders dated 19.9.2011. Against this order, the borrower F approached the Division Bench by filing intra court appeal which has been allowed by the High Court. The sale in question is set aside. 11. The High Court took Decision Date : 22-04-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4679/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
112	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.K. PATNAIK,F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA well as S.A. filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, directed the DRT to hear the parties and dispose of both the cases or at least the Securitisation Application filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents without any delay. The High Court also noted that c at that point of time, the DRT had 10.11.2007, it is stated that even thereafter the sale was not effected. Pursuant to the said order, the 1st and 2nd Respondents stated to have deposited the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the 4th Respondent-Bank. On 27.12.2007, G the DRT passed Orders in S.A. No.20 of 2007 dismissing the Decision Date : 10-02-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1927/2014 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
113	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil  Judge : RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH in the name of a company E viz. Shri Deepadharani Yarns Pvt. Ltd., the company has not been arrayed as an accused while three of its Directors are so arrayed, and · (3) The bank has a remedy for recovering the money in question for which it has obtained an order of the DRT and F can Decision Date : 20-11-2013 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1958/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
114	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI bona fide purchaser for value and the sale was confirmed in his favour as early as on 08.11.2005. Further, it was pointed out that the application preferred by Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 before the G DRT , challenging the sale notice dated 08.11.2005, was also dismissed by the DRT on Decision Date : 30-10-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9771/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
115	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ANIL R. DAVE,DIPAK MISRA in disposal of cases and granting of adjournments by ORT and DRAT - Object of the Act - Explained -- Held: Delay in disposal of application by DRT and appeal by DRAT 0 has the potentiality or creating a corrosion in the economic spine of the country - Grant of an adjournment should be INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993: G ss. 19 and 22 - Object of the Act and the procedure before Tribunal - Held: DRT and ORA T shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the rules framed -- They Decision Date : 13-09-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8486/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
116	English हिन्दी - Hindi मराठी - Marathi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI Share Certificate No.45. Union Bank of India filed Suit No.1079 of 1993 for C recovery of the dues and also for enforcement of the security. The suit was later transferred to the ORT, Mumbai, and was numbered as OA No.245 of 2001. The DRT , Mumbai, later passed an order of attachment in Decision Date : 11-09-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7939/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
117	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,JASTI CHELAMESWAR,MADAN B. LOKUR date of sale - Where the sale of security has been effected in execution of recovery certificate issued by DRT , distribution of undisbursed proceeds has to be made by DRT alone in accordance with s. 529A of Companies Act and by oo other forum or authority - Where debtor company is not G The claims of the workmen who claim to be entitled to payment pari passu have to be considered and adjudicated by the liquidator of the debtor company and not by the DRT . [para 73] [317-H; 318-A] B 3.3. The impugned judgment is set aside. The Debt C Recovery Tribunal and the Decision Date : 07-05-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7045/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
118	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : H.L. DATTU,DIPAK MISRA the Official E Liquidator to hand over the possession of the properties in respect of which the sale had been confirmed by the Recovery Officer of DRT . Similar prayer was also made by the Allahabad Bank by filing another application. As is evincible from the factual narration, the Decision Date : 12-03-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2511/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
119	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU examined. In light of the study and requirements of additional facilities, the same has been increased to 7200 sq. ft. and 4500 sq. ft. respectively. In case more than one DRT is accommodated in one building, space would be saved for common facilities such as bar room, consultation reception, canteen, washrooms, etc. In such a case, the space requirements for the second and third DRT (if located in the same building) may be around 6000 sq. ft. and 5500 sq. ft. respectively. e. Preference is to be given to buildings where parking facility is provided either within Decision Date : 22-01-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/617/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
120	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA stay on 26th February, 2007 as a consequence of which the entire process of holding a fresh auction came to a c standstill. At this juncture, an application was filed by Umrah Developers to permit it to withdraw the amount which it had deposited. The application was rejected by the DRT wide circulation in the city of Mysore inviting bids for the sale of the property. (ii) It shall be mentioned in the advertisement that the reserve price is Rs.3 crores and the same shall be deposited before the Recovery Officer of the DRT to enable one to participate in the bid. (iii) Decision Date : 03-12-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8658/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
121	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.H. KAPADIA,A.K. PATNAIK,SWATANTER KUMAR primarily dealing with the question whether the amoiunt directed to be realized by sale of assets of the debtor company by the DRT , at the instance of Allahabad Bank, may straightaway be released in its favour, or whether, keeping in view the provisions of Section 19(19) G of the ROB Act read Decision Date : 21-09-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6755/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Matter Remitted back to company court
122	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : G.S. SINGHVI,H.L. DATTU the Securitisation Act. Evidently, Parliament did not intend to give priority to the dues of private creditors over sovereign debt of the State. E If the provisions of the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act are interpreted keeping in view the background and context in which these Decision Date : 08-11-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9630/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
123	English हिन्दी - Hindi मराठी - Marathi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU any person affected by an action u/s. 13(4) by providing for an F appeal before the DRT - Ordinarily relief under Articles 2261 227 of the Constitution is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person - Therefore, High Court was fully justified Nevertheless, the High Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo in the matter for a period of 10 weeks from the date of its order, so as to enable the appellants to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short the " DRT ") under Section 17 of the Act. E 10. Thereafter, the Decision Date : 07-02-2011 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/338/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
124	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : P. SATHASIVAM,ANIL R. DAVE injunction restraining the appellants from alienating or encumbering or dealing with the subject property was granted. The prayer for mandatory injunction for directing the appellants to discharge the loan in respect of ORT proceedings pending on the file of DRT - 1, Chennai, thereby retrieve Decision Date : 22-11-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9821/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
125	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : P. SATHASIVAM,B.S. CHAUHAN parties therein should appear before the Recovery Officer-I, DRT -111 Delhi on 09.08.2005 for execution of the same. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer, the Company preferred an appeal being F Appeal No. 70 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Decision Date : 01-10-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8443/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
126	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : J.M. PANCHAL,A.K. PATNAIK of India that through various legislative measures stlch as the DRT Act, the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Credit Information D Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and through some administrative measures, the res'pondents are trying to reduce the number and amount of NPAs and to detect and check Decision Date : 18-08-2010 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/291/1998 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
127	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : P. SATHASIVAM,ANIL R. DAVE provided for in the contract or before the DRT or under the Securitization Act. But, if the instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good, public interest, unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably or its actions are discriminatory E and violative of Article 14 of the Cor.stitution of Decision Date : 30-07-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6077/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
128	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH both the Tribunals and before the High Court. But with a view to deprive the Bank of the legitimate dues and to delay the proceedings initiated against them, they did not appear before DRT . Though it was not necessary for the Bank to serve the appellants once again, they made a prayer to extremely important fact that they had appeared before the civil court and had filed B written statement. The application proceeded on the footing as if the appellants were never aware of any proceedings initiated against them by the plaintiff Bank. DRT was, therefore, wholly right in Decision Date : 31-07-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4960/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
129	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.B. SINHA,A.K. GANGULY taken a contrary view. SECTION 31 OF DRT ISSUE: 13. We may at this juncture notice the provisions for transfer under the ORT Act especially Section 31 which states that only suits or proceeding pending before the court immediately before the establishment of the Tribunal under the Act Decision Date : 29-07-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4796/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
130	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : ALTAMAS KABIR,CYRIAC JOSEPH authority after conducting an adjudication into the matter to declare any such action invalid and also to restore possession even though possession may have been made over to the transferee. The consequences of B the authority vested in DRT under Sub-Section (3) of Section 17 necessarily implies Decision Date : 16-07-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4429/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
131	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : B.N. AGRAWAL,G.S. SINGHVI striking down State legislations on the ground that l the same were in conflict with the Central legislations - ~ Constitution of India, 1950 - Arlicle 254. DRT Act and Securitisation Act - Enactment of - B Legislative intent - Discussed. Interpretation of statutes: Non-obstante clause - Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others v. State of Bihar and others (supra), which has been expressly approved by the Constitution B Bench. 15. Undisputedly, the DRT Act and Securitisation Act have been enacted by Parliament under Entry 45 in List I in the Seventh Schedule whereas Bombay and Kerala Acts Decision Date : 27-02-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/95/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
132	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : C.K. THAKKER,ALTAMAS KABIR & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. MIS ARI HANT 705 ... "';1 THREADS LTD. & ORS . . , and movable property. Against the order of the Recovery A ~ .. '.') " Officer fixing the reserve price, the company filed an appeal before DRT . In the meantime, auction took place in which the appellant was declared as application to implead it in the pending appeals. The application for impleadment was allowed by DRT . 111 the c meantime, DRT allowed the appeal of the Company setting aside the auction sale subject to certain conditions with regard to payment of interest, expenses etc. How~ver, the Company Decision Date : 25-08-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5225/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
133	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : C.K. THAKKER,D.K. JAIN stage that SBI was one of the major creditors. It initiated recovery proceedings against the Company by filing Original Application No. 2638 of 1999 and + got a decree from Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT )-1, Mumbai D for a sum of Rs.84.39 crores with interest. Other financial insti- tutions had initiated proceedings for recovery of their dues. Receiver was appointed by DRT -1, Mumbai, who took posses- sion of the properties of the Comrany. Steps were also taken to protect properties by employing police force. The Receiver E also met representatives of Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, Decision Date : 11-07-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4324/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
134	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : C.K. THAKKER,ALTAMAS KABIR 269. UNION BANK OF INDIA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] -. -r· appealed against the order passed by the DRT , but the Debt A Recovery AppellatE;! Tribunal, Allahabad ('DRAT' for short) also dismissed the appeal. A writ petition filed against the order of DRAT also met with the same fate. The High how the matter has been placed before us. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that DRT committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in proceeding with the application and deciding it on merits ex-parte in absence c Decision Date : 08-01-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/86/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
135	English ગુજરાતી - Gujarati हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI details, the party claimed against the Bank Date of (Rs. in Filing lacs) 4 DRT , M/s. A.R.B. 993.74 The case is filed against A'bad Nagami A'bad the Bank for non- 283.03 Nicotine submission of export Pvt. Ltd. bills and non-releasing of the sanctioned limits. We have taken plea that since addressed to Respondent No. 2 herein through his advocate dated 25.01.2005 stated: "My client says and submits that the litigation you are mentioning does not exist at DRT , Ahmedabad. On the contrary my client has filed Special Civil Suit No. 178/2003 on 28.3.2003 and the same is pending C Decision Date : 18-09-2007 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1248/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
136	English ગુજરાતી - Gujarati हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI of deposit is a condition of impossibility which renders the remedy made available before the DRT as nugatory and illusory. The learned Attorney General refutes the aforesaid contention. It is further submitted that such a condition of pre-deposit has been B held to be valid by this Court Decision Date : 18-09-2007 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4340/2007 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
137	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU recover the amount by sale of mortgaged property, it was held that despite the fact that in the F recovery certificate the schedule of the properties attached -and sold was shown to be nil, stating : G H "Be it as it may, the finding, recorded by the DRT as against the APIIC, in no Decision Date : 30-08-2007 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7824/2004 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
138	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA schedule. DRT passed an order in terms of compromise. Respondent defaulted in payment. Appellant-Bank took the view that there was non-compliance with the terms ~ of the compromise/settlement, therefore, they were entitled to recover the F entire decretal amount . .. Respondent filed of default in payment according to the time schedule. DRT passed an order in terms of the compromise. Undisputedly there was some default in payment. Since the B appellant-bank took the view that there was non-compliance with the terms of the compromise/settlement, therefore, the Decision Date : 26-03-2007 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1573/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
139	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : B.P. SINGH,ALTAMAS KABIR accumulated liabilities exceeding Rs. I, 0001- crore and defaulted in its obligation to the UT/ under the common agreement-UT! filed a claim under the DRT Act-Company filed an objection alleging that the Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India and UT/ Trustee Company Limited (''specified company"), not being "financial institutions" within the meaning of the DRT Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) had E no jurisdiction to decide the claim- DRT dismissed the objection-The Appellate Tribunal held that they were "financial institutions" as defined by Section Decision Date : 13-12-2006 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5782/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
140	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA 1993 (inserted by amending Act 30 of 2004)-Section 19(1) first proviso-Recovery of bank dues-Recourse to 2002 Act-Withdrawal of original application in terms of the first proviso to section 19(1)-Held: ls not a condition precedent-Bank having elected to seek their remedy in terms of DRT can still invoke 2002 Act for realizing secured assets D without withdrawing application filed before DRT -lt's the discretion of the Bank-Doctrine of election is not applicable-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XXIII, Rule 1(3). Sections 13(4), 13(8) and 17(3)-Recovery of dues by Decision Date : 29-11-2006 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3228/2006 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Banks/Fi's appeal/I.A. allowed, Borrower's appeal/IA dismissed.
141	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : S.B. SINHA,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN due repayment, discharge and redemption by the Company." It is not in dispute that the suit filed by Respondent No. 2 has been C decreed; whereas the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) initiated by the appellant and others is still pending. It is furthermore not in dispute Decision Date : 28-04-2006 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2332/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
142	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : N. SANTOSH HEGDE,B.P. SINGH,S.B. SINHA disbursal. The.said order was later upheld by the Division Bench of High Court. Meanwhile, the suit filed by the appellant was transferred to DRT . Hence the present appeal. Appellant-B~nk contended that High Court erred in passing the order since the assets of the Company had been sold as a Decision Date : 14-03-2005 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1321/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
143	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : D.M. DHARMADHIKARI,H.K. SEMA including the husbands of the appellants, the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) ordered for attachment inter alia of the Suit property. Appellants G objected to the attachment claiming to have contributed for the purchase of the property from their independent income. While remitting the matter DRT to record a finding on the ownership of the appellants, the apex court permitted the parties to lead evidences, however, it was clarified that the burden of proving their shares will be on the appellants. H 681 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A For the remittances Decision Date : 06-12-2004 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6790/2003 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
144	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : V.N. KHARE,BRIJESH KUMAR,ARUN KUMAR that direction has so far been taken under section 13(4). The bar of civil court thus applies to D all such matters which may be taken cognizance of by the DRT , apart from those matters in which measures have already been taken under sub­ section (4) of Section 13. However, to a very Decision Date : 08-04-2004 | Case No : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL)/92/2002 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
145	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : M. JAGANNADHA RAO,N. SANTOSH HEGDE 1956 seeking stay of recovery proceedings and for staying sales of assets of company by the appellant Bank. In the said application the Company Judge passed an order staying the further sale of assets of the Company in the recovery case in the DRT and also restraining disbursement of Decision Date : 10-04-2000 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2536/2000 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
146	English हिन्दी - Hindi മലയാളം - Malayalam मराठी - Marathi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi தமிழ் - Tamil తెలుగు - Telugu  Judge : G.B. PATTANAIK,M.B. SHAH into consideration to' interpret the provisions of the Act-Hence, suit filed by the appellant-bank for recovery of debt from one of the several defendants and for certain ancillary and incidental relieft against other defendants-Held, DRT had exclusive jurisdiction to try the suit-Civif Decision Date : 08-04-1999 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2161/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
147	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : A.S. ANAND,M.K. MUKHERJEE Subsequetly, an application, Ex. 27, filed by the appellants for leave A to amend the election petition for correcting certain inadvertant "errors, omissions and slips" was allowed DRT 28.11.1991 and the necessary correc­ tions were carried out in the election petition. Again an application Ex. Decision Date : 18-07-1995 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/640/1993 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
148	English हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : V.R. KRISHNA IYER,R.S. PATHAK 5<'t:1~ 011 territorial basis-Validity-H'11t:rhcr vio/,uii·e of Art. 14. • • Auiclcs 32 and 136-When root of' the r;riei'l.'liCr? and the fruit of writ are nor ilulh·id1ud but cC9llective courts power is l1Tle cf a.f]innative structuring of C rt~ DRT .\S 10 nu1kc it n1eani11gful and Decision Date : 17-01-1979 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2297/1978 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
149	English বাংলা - Bengali हिन्दी - Hindi  Judge : KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW,P.N. BHAGWATI,N.L. UNTWALIA DRT ~ntion wa~ thereafter made on 10th July. 1973 but the petitioner was abscondinJt and he could not, therefore, be arriested until 2·1th Au1zust, 1973. On these facts it is difficult to see how it can be contended that the order of detention was passed by the Dis~ trict Magistrate: mala Decision Date : 21-01-1975 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/467/1974 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
150	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,K.N. WANCHOO,M. HIDAYATULLAH,K.C. DAS GUPTA,N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR sought to be read as saying: - N a.rottam.tku •• Sta•e of Madhya PradMh DRT -9 Gupta, J. 1964 Narottamdas v. State of Madhya Ptadesh Das Gupta, J. 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964J "the said minim um rates of wages shall be payable by the employer in the said Decision Date : 21-04-1964 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/221/1964 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
151	English हिन्दी - Hindi ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi  Judge : BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA,SYED JAFFER IMAM,A.K. SARKAR,K. SUBBA RAO,J.C. SHAH "~ . 63 Sardar Baldtv Singh v. Connnissi(lnet of l 11rn111t~I ax, Dtllii & Ajnur Sarka_r ]. ~!Hda, Hn/ DRT · Sn11:l1 Cnmmi.~_<i(lner <'f ''''"'::r-:11x, Delhi & Ajmo Sa1kar J. 492 SCPRE:ME COURT REPORTS [1!)61) It sroms to us tha.t the Tribune.I we.a wrong in the Decision Date : 02-09-1960 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/317/1955 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed