Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) is the appellate authority that hears appeals against orders passed by Debt Recovery Tribunals. It reviews decisions in debt recovery matters involving banks and financial institutions.
The tribunal held that a debt recovery tribunal cannot reject a counter-claim after a binding appellate remand. Orders bypassing affirmed appellate directions and natural justice were set aside.
The Tribunal held that payment of the balance sale consideration without a written extension violates Rule 9(4). Auction sale and sale certificate were therefore declared invalid.
The dispute concerned whether DRT Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction over a recovery application. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction was valid since the bank office maintaining the loan account was located at Hyderabad.
The Tribunal found that statutory procedures for issuing demand, possession, and sale notices were properly followed by the bank. It observed that the borrowers provided no valuation report or evidence supporting their claim of undervaluation. The auction was therefore sustained as legally valid.
The Tribunal confirmed the dismissal of an SA challenging symbolic possession under SARFAESI. Notices were sent to the guarantor, borrower, and spouse, with proper affixture and newspaper publication. The case emphasizes the importance of timely communication and procedural compliance in recovery proceedings.
The DRAT set aside the DRT order directing the bank to update credit information, ruling that former directors and guarantors cannot reopen withdrawn loan proceedings to alter CIBIL records.
The appellate tribunal restrained the bank from taking physical possession of the property until disposal of the pending application or the three-month period, ensuring fair treatment of the appellant.
DRAT Chennai held that mortgage created on the basis of copy of the sale deed is not legal. Accordingly, mortgage created in favour of the Punjab and Sind Bank based on copy of the sale deed is held invalid.
DRAT Chennai held that person aggrieved by an order of the recovery officer can prefer an appeal before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, DRAT disposes of this Appeal by sending the appeal to DRT.
