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 appellate tribunal held that staying recovery proceedings through a SARFAESI application was without jurisdiction when an alternative appeal remedy under the RDDBFI Act was available.
The appellate tribunal upheld denial of interim protection as occupants failed to establish lawful tenancy through a registered lease, allowing recovery proceedings to continue.
DRAT Allahabad held that initiation of proceeding under SARFAESI Act for the same debt due after rejection of claim under Co-operative Societies Act is not justifiable. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
The tribunal upheld dismissal of a bank’s appeal, holding that repeated applications were unnecessary when earlier orders already permitted recovery through auction of attached properties.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the reduction of future interest where the lender failed to disburse the entire sanctioned loan on time. The ruling affirms that tribunals may lower interest rates when lender conduct affects project completion.
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 court examined whether possession assistance could be granted when the assignee’s rights were pending approval. It upheld the rejection, holding that verification of a valid assignment is mandatory under Section 14.
The appellate tribunal upheld joint liability where accepted bills remained unpaid and the appellants failed to rebut the bank’s evidence. The ruling confirms that unchallenged documentary claims can sustain recovery orders.
The appellate tribunal held that a date discrepancy in the possession notice was a harmless typographical error. It ruled that SARFAESI procedures were substantially complied with and restored the bank’s recovery action.
