Topic

DRT

6 articlesLatest July 2026
Section 9(2) Presidency Towns Insolvency Act | Recovery Certificate Not a 'Decree or Order' for Insolvency Notice : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Section 9(2) Presidency Towns Insolvency Act | Recovery Certificate Not a 'Decree or Order' for Insolvency Notice : SC

The Supreme Court ruled that a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the RDB Act does not qualify as a 'decree or order' under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. This strict interpretation bars creditors from initiating insolvency proceedings based solely on recovery certificates, reinforcing the need for a formal decree or order for insolvency notices.

Section 17 SARFAESI Act | Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Barred When DRT Remedy Exists: Karnataka HC
Case Law Analysis
|Karnataka High Court

Section 17 SARFAESI Act | Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Barred When DRT Remedy Exists: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that borrowers challenging SARFAESI Act notices - including possession and auction orders - must first exhaust their statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Invoking Article 226 to bypass this exclusive remedy undermines the legislative intent of streamlined debt recovery and leaves borrowers without the tribunal’s specialized expertise.

Section 18(1) SARFAESI Act | Pre-Deposit Mandatory for All DRT Appeals, Including Condonation Challenges : Bombay HC
Case Law Analysis
|Bombay High Court

Section 18(1) SARFAESI Act | Pre-Deposit Mandatory for All DRT Appeals, Including Condonation Challenges : Bombay HC

Bombay High Court rules that the 50% pre-deposit requirement under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act applies universally to all appeals against DRT orders, including those challenging condonation of delay. The judgment overturns prior DRAT orders waiving the deposit and declares earlier contrary rulings per incuriam, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory pre-deposit norms for borrowers and secured creditors.

SARFAESI Act Section 17 | Exclusive DRT Remedy Bars High Court Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 : Bombay HC
Case Law Analysis
|Bombay High Court

SARFAESI Act Section 17 | Exclusive DRT Remedy Bars High Court Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 : Bombay HC

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.