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 dismissed the appeal, confirming that repeated failure to file written statements despite ample opportunity validates ex-parte recovery orders.
The appellate tribunal held that the bank had duly served, published, and affixed the sale notice as required under Rule 8(6). It ruled that the DRT erred in cancelling the auction despite full statutory compliance.
The appellate tribunal upheld the award of 9% interest on refund to an auction purchaser, holding that statutory violations by the bank’s authorised officer justified compensation despite a no-interest clause.
The appellate tribunal held that the magistrate had lawfully exercised powers under Section 14 after considering the statutory affidavit. The DRT’s restraint on recovery action was found to be contrary to law and was set aside.
The appellate tribunal held that the bank violated Rule 8(5) by conducting the auction nearly ten months after valuation without obtaining a fresh report. The sale and subsequent actions were set aside on this ground.
The tribunal held that objections to the maintainability of a bank’s Original Application claiming over Rs. 50 crores were rejected, affirming DRT jurisdiction over debts arising from fraudulent withdrawals.
The appellate tribunal upheld cancellation of the auction after finding that possession and sale notices were not properly served. It ruled that recovery actions without statutory compliance cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal found that statutory procedures for issuing demand, possession, and sale notices were properly followed by the bank. It observed that the borrowers provided no valuation report or evidence supporting their claim of undervaluation. The auction was therefore sustained as legally valid.
The Tribunal held that failure to conduct the mandatory admission and denial of documents required rectification before issuing the final order. The ruling allows only the procedural step to be completed while rejecting all other requests.
The Tribunal confirmed the dismissal of an SA challenging symbolic possession under SARFAESI. Notices were sent to the guarantor, borrower, and spouse, with proper affixture and newspaper publication. The case emphasizes the importance of timely communication and procedural compliance in recovery proceedings.
