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 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.
The DRAT set aside the DRT order directing the bank to update credit information, ruling that former directors and guarantors cannot reopen withdrawn loan proceedings to alter CIBIL records.
The appellate tribunal restrained the bank from taking physical possession of the property until disposal of the pending application or the three-month period, ensuring fair treatment of the appellant.
DRAT Chennai held that mortgage created on the basis of copy of the sale deed is not legal. Accordingly, mortgage created in favour of the Punjab and Sind Bank based on copy of the sale deed is held invalid.
DRAT Chennai held that person aggrieved by an order of the recovery officer can prefer an appeal before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, DRAT disposes of this Appeal by sending the appeal to DRT.
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.
