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 : 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 : The tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that a second proceeding cannot be filed when an earlier challenge has been...
Corporate Law : The Tribunal ruled that a sale made after creation of an equitable mortgage cannot defeat the bank’s security interest, leading ...
Corporate Law : The DRT Karnataka allowed recovery of ₹99.81 lakh after the borrower failed to appear and the bank’s documents proved the loan...
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...
The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s ruling that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act provides a mandatory arbitration mechanism for disputes between banks or financial institutions involving unpaid dues.
DRAT Allahabad set aside the DRT order for not examining the borrower’s plea of non-service of Section 13 notice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper hearing.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the DRT’s direction to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs, finding no infirmity in the interim order. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
The Tribunal upheld conditional delay condonation, directing payment of ₹20 lakh as a prerequisite while temporarily deferring possession, reaffirming compliance with Tribunal-imposed conditions.
The appellate tribunal held that a legal representative cannot raise objections not taken by the deceased defendant. The order striking off the defence was upheld.
The Tribunal held that sale of property below the distress value fixed by the bank’s own valuer is impermissible under SARFAESI. The auction and all subsequent actions were set aside.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the issue of pre-deposit required examination by the DRT. The appeal was remanded with directions to consider statutory compliance.
The dispute concerned an interim restraint on enforcement under Section 14 of SARFAESI. The Appellate Tribunal declined to examine merits and directed expedited disposal of the pending securitization application.
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 appellate tribunal upheld cancellation of enforcement proceedings after finding violations in service of possession and sale notices, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory rules.
