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...
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.
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.
