#Debts Recovery Tribunal

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a writ court’s direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to expedite SARFAESI proceedings, ruling that such a directive oversteps jurisdiction when borrowers retain the statutory remedy under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act. The decision reinforces that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to fast-track recovery actions, preserving the borrower’s right to challenge dues before the DRT or appellate tribunal.

Bombay High Court ruled that Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot condone delay beyond 45 days in filing securitisation applications under SARFAESI Act, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The judgment clarifies that DRAT erred in allowing condonation where the statutory limitation period was breached, impacting auction purchasers and secured creditors.

Allahabad High Court clarifies that the 45-day limitation period under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act begins from the issuance of the sale certificate, not the auction date. This ruling sets aside orders by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal, remanding the case for fresh consideration on merits, impacting borrowers and secured creditors in debt recovery proceedings.

Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirms that writ petitions under Article 226 challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings must be dismissed if the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) provides an efficacious alternative remedy. The ruling underscores judicial restraint, preventing bypass of statutory mechanisms for debt recovery disputes.

Bombay High Court holds that SARFAESI Act proceedings cannot be initiated against borrowers classified as MSMEs under the MSME Development Act, 2006. The ruling reinforces Supreme Court precedents limiting secured creditors' recovery avenues, impacting banks' enforcement strategies for MSME loans.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that once the EPFO secures a lien on the auction proceeds of a defaulting company’s assets, attaching the personal bank account of a director is disproportionate and legally unsustainable. This clarifies that recovery under the EPF Act must respect the principle of proportionality, protecting individuals from dual enforcement when the debt is already secured.

Madhya Pradesh High Court directs borrowers to deposit 10% of dues and stays coercive action under SARFAESI Act until DRT becomes functional, aligning with Supreme Court precedent. The ruling balances creditor rights with procedural fairness during tribunal inoperability, setting a precedent for interim relief in debt recovery disputes.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that assigning DRT Jabalpur matters to Ahmedabad’s Presiding Officer does not deprive borrowers of their statutory right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act. This ensures administrative continuity in financial recovery proceedings even during judicial vacancies, safeguarding procedural fairness for debtors and lenders alike.

Allahabad High Court dismisses writ petition for title deed release, ruling that aggrieved parties must first exhaust remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 when efficacious alternative remedies exist, reinforcing the bar on bypassing statutory forums.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that borrowers may bypass Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and directly approach the High Court under Article 226 only if the DRT is non-functional. The court mandates filing a Section 17 application within 7 days and depositing 10% of dues to maintain status quo on secured assets.

Bombay High Court reaffirms that borrowers must exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before approaching writ courts, dismissing a petition challenging a Section 14 order. The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's stance in Celir LLP and Satyawati Tandon, limiting judicial intervention where alternative remedies exist.

After a SICA rehabilitation scheme collapses, creditors may claim pendente lite interest from the date of suit filing at the contractual rate, with all recoveries first applied to interest before principal. This clarifies the repayment hierarchy for banks and financial institutions pursuing legacy debt recovery under the now-repealed SICA framework, reinforcing contractual rights in insolvency aftermaths.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that borrowers must deposit 20% of dues to secure interim relief from coercive action under SARFAESI Act while appeals are pending before DRT. The order clarifies the threshold for interim protection, balancing creditor rights with borrower relief in debt recovery proceedings.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a non-functional Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) does not deprive borrowers of interim relief under the SARFAESI Act. The Court stayed coercive action pending appeal, directing the borrower to deposit Rs. 35 lakhs and ensuring expeditious hearing, reinforcing natural justice in asset possession disputes.

Secured creditors may proceed under SARFAESI Act when an IBC petition filed under Section 95 is never registered by the NCLT Registrar, as no statutory moratorium arises without formal admission. This ruling sharpens procedural compliance standards for insolvency initiations and protects creditor enforcement rights against technical delays or non-filing.