Best DRT and Sarfaesi Lawyer in India Ajay Gautam Advocate: Sarfaesi DRT Judgments by Supreme Court of India

Sarfaesi DRT Judgments by Supreme Court of India

DRT Landmark Judgement: DRT Judgements Favourable to Borrowers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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