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 : Karnataka High Court directed that no coercive measures be taken against borrowers until their recall plea is decided by DRT. Cour...
Corporate Law : NCLAT dismissed PNB's insolvency plea against Concast Morena as time-barred, ruling that a pending recovery case in DRT doesn't qu...
Corporate Law : DRAT Kolkata dismissed appeal against DRT, highlighting that multiple prior adjournments had already been granted. Courts cannot a...
Corporate Law : DRAT Chennai transferred the Mahan Textiles case from DRT Coimbatore to DRT-III Chennai, citing the Presiding Officer's previous p...
Corporate Law : The DRAT Chennai has disposed of an appeal from Venus P P V Spinning Mills against a conditional deposit order, instead directing ...
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...
Karnataka High Court directed that no coercive measures be taken against borrowers until their recall plea is decided by DRT. Court emphasized that issues of improper service of notice must be adjudicated before recovery is enforced. The ruling safeguards borrowers’ right to be heard in debt recovery proceedings.
NCLAT dismissed PNB’s insolvency plea against Concast Morena as time-barred, ruling that a pending recovery case in DRT doesn’t qualify for Section 14 exclusion. the rejection of a bank’s Section 7 petition, stating the application was time-barred and the RDDB Act recovery suit didn’t reset the deadline.
DRAT Kolkata dismissed appeal against DRT, highlighting that multiple prior adjournments had already been granted. Courts cannot allow prolonged stalling of recovery proceedings under RDB Act.
DRAT Chennai transferred the Mahan Textiles case from DRT Coimbatore to DRT-III Chennai, citing the Presiding Officer’s previous professional association with the petitioners.
The DRAT Chennai has disposed of an appeal from Venus P P V Spinning Mills against a conditional deposit order, instead directing the DRT Coimbatore to fast-track its final decision on the main case against South Indian Bank.
NCLAT holds that time spent in pending Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; exclusion applies only if prior proceedings fail due to jurisdictional defect.
DRAT Chennai held that rule 9(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 empowers forfeiture of earnest money deposit when balance sale consideration is not paid within stipulated time. Accordingly, order confirmed and appeal is dismissed.
DRAT Chennai held that since sale not held in the manner required under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act] hence the same is liable to be set aside.
DRAT Chennai held that measures taken under SARFAESI Act for sale of property is not in accordance with also since affixture of the impugned sale notice was not proved by the appellant bank and valuation of the property was not properly done.
In M. Balasubramaniam v Federal Bank, DRAT Chennai ordered guarantors to pay pro-rata dues of ₹9.03 lakhs each but imposed 6% simple interest from 2002 due to their negligence in the appeal.
