Corporate Law : NCLAT holds that time spent in pending Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Ac...
Corporate Law : This summary examines whether DRT/DRAT orders for pre-deposit for a stay, without clear legal backing, conflict with borrowers' fu...
Fema / RBI : Learn the core underpinnings of the Code of Conduct for Debt Recovery Agents, prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and Bank/Fin...
Corporate Law : This paper mainly discusses the scenario in the current legal system with respect to loan repayments and the laws related to them....
Finance : There is no mention of the term re-sealing of property in SARFAESI Act, 2022 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy (RDB) Act, 1...
Corporate Law : DRT Chandigarh quashed the auction after finding the bank failed to maintain the mandatory 15-day notice period before sale....
Corporate Law : The NCLT held that a DRT Recovery Certificate provides a fresh cause of action, making the Section 7 application filed within thre...
Corporate Law : The DRAT upheld the DRT's refusal to accept the settlement after finding that the bank had not complied with the final order direc...
Corporate Law : The Bombay High Court deferred the bank’s proposed action to take physical possession of secured assets after noting that the DR...
Corporate Law : The DRT Delhi held that prepayment charges cannot be levied when a bank recalls a loan and the borrower has not voluntarily offere...
Corporate Law : Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic Filing (Amendment) Rules, 2023 – The e-filing of ...
Corporate Law : MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 10th September, 2021 S.O. 4145(E).—In exercis...
Finance : (1) These rules may be called the Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic Filing (Amendment) Ru...
Finance : Central Government hereby notifies the following change in the location of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai with effect ...
Company Law : Central Government hereby notifies the establishment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Siliguri with effect from the 16th day of M...
DRT Chandigarh quashed the auction after finding the bank failed to maintain the mandatory 15-day notice period before sale.
The NCLT held that a DRT Recovery Certificate provides a fresh cause of action, making the Section 7 application filed within three years maintainable. It admitted the CIRP after finding that financial debt and default were established.
The DRAT upheld the DRT’s refusal to accept the settlement after finding that the bank had not complied with the final order directing refund to the auction purchaser. Both the borrower and the bank’s appeals were dismissed.
The Bombay High Court deferred the bank’s proposed action to take physical possession of secured assets after noting that the DRAT Chairperson was unavailable to hear the petitioners’ restoration applications. The Court granted limited interim protection until 20 May 2026.
The DRT Delhi held that prepayment charges cannot be levied when a bank recalls a loan and the borrower has not voluntarily offered early repayment. The recovery claim was reduced after excluding such charges.
The tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that a second proceeding cannot be filed when an earlier challenge has been withdrawn without permission to pursue another remedy.
The Tribunal ruled that a sale made after creation of an equitable mortgage cannot defeat the bank’s security interest, leading to dismissal of the borrower’s challenge.
The DRT Karnataka allowed recovery of ₹99.81 lakh after the borrower failed to appear and the bank’s documents proved the loan, hypothecation, and default. The tribunal granted recovery with 12% simple interest.
The Tribunal allowed the bank’s recovery application after borrowers failed to appear or dispute the claim, resulting in an ex-parte decision. It permitted recovery of ₹37.80 lakh with interest and costs and allowed sale of hypothecated assets if payment is not made.
The Tribunal allowed recovery of ₹10.74 lakh after the borrower defaulted on a car loan and failed to appear in the proceedings. The bank’s documentary evidence remained unrebutted.
