Topic
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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court halts auction of borrowers' residential property under SARFAESI Act, ruling that procedural fairness mandates suspension when Debt Recovery Tribunal is non-functional and 75% of the loan has already been repaid. The decision underscores the need for banks to consider partial repayments before enforcing coercive recovery measures.
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.
The Allahabad High Court has held that borrowers cannot bypass the Debt Recovery Tribunal’s statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing writ petitions under Article 226. This reinforces that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory appeals, protecting the legislative intent behind the SARFAESI framework and binding all secured creditors and borrowers in Uttar Pradesh.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that borrowers must first approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition but granted a 30-day window to file before the DRT without limitation, reinforcing the statutory remedy exhaustion principle for secured creditor disputes.
The High Court of Sikkim ruled that a District Magistrate’s order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of secured assets remains valid and enforceable even if a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) later issues a stay. The court clarified that compliance with the District Magistrate’s order is not automatically suspended by interim DRT directives, ensuring banks can proceed with asset takeover unless expressly restrained.
Bombay High Court holds that Debts Recovery Tribunals have territorial jurisdiction under Section 17(1-A) SARFAESI Act for securitisation applications, clarifying procedural rights of borrowers.