Landmark Judgments on Debts Recovery Tribunal by Supreme Court of India

Leave a reply

Landmark Judgments on Debts Recovery Tribunal by Supreme Court of India

1Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India Vs Shanmugavelu – [2024] 2 S.C.R. 122024 INSC 80
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,Manoj Misra,J.B. PARDIWALA
the appellant returned the cheque and declined the said request vide its letter dated 06.04.2017. 14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent filed an application being SA No. 143 of 2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II (“DRT”) assailing the appellant’s sale cancellation and
Decision Date : 02-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/235/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
2  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
CELIR LLP Vs BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 532023 INSC 838
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA
that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A. (4) creditor. (10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfi ed with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may fi le an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent court, as the
Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5542/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
3  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs M/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 7732023 INSC 446
Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA
and constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunals, the suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Jaipur (for brevity “DRT, Jaipur”, hereafter). Consent decree was passed on 12th November, 1998 in favour of PNB and against the borrower and the guarantors. Part payment was made by petition5against the State, the Commissioner, the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Chandigarh, the borrower and the guarantors. 12. Prayer in the writ petition was for orders restraining sale by auction of the mortgaged property of the borrower at Baddi, District Solan for recovery
Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8980/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
4  English           বাংলা – Bengali          हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs FRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 8582023 INSC 386
Judge : Aravind Kumar,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
and Others v. Union of India and Others1. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case: “50. It has also been submitted that an appeal is entertainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal only after such measures as provided in sub-section (4) Section 13 are taken and Section 34 bars to entertain any proceeding in respect of a matter which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Thus before any action or measure is taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13, it is submitted by Mr Salve, one
Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2924/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
5  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. Vs NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 182023 INSC 379
Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,SANJIV KHANNA
Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, (2023) 2 SCC 168, “36. In the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal M/S SOUTH INDIAN
Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
6  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer
AJAY KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM GOENKA Vs TOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 9862023 INSC 232
Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,J.B. PARDIWALA
in the priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The IBC provides for designating the NCLT and the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) as the adjudicating authorities for corporate
Decision Date : 15-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/172/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
7  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer
K. SREEDHAR Vs M/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD & ORS. – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 5792023 INSC 17
Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,M.R. SHAH
unsustainable and is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal -I dismissing SA No.171/2016 is restored. [Para 8][594-D] ITC Limited vs. Blue Coast Hotels Limited and Others (2018) 15 SCC 99 : [2018] 5 SCR 516, Indian Bank and Another vs. K. State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.12081/2019 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the debtor and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I (hereinafter referred to as “DRT-I”) in SA No.171/2016 as well
Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7402/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
8  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer
SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR Vs PRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 5532023 INSC 14
Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,M.R. SHAH
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which would have a direct bearing are required to be referred to. The said provisions read as under: 18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.—(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal [under section 17, may prefer an along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to an Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal . [Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower:] [Provided
Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8969/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
9  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs GIRNAR CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 8732023 INSC 12
Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter between secured creditor and debtor – Person aggrieved by the steps u/s. 13(4) and s.14 of the SARFAESI Act has to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal/application u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Recoveries under the SARFAESI Act secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4) / order passed under Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal / application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is observed and held that
Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6662/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
10  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
VARIMADUGU OBI REDDY Vs B. SREENIVASULU & ORS. – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 11082022 INSC 1207
Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,C.T. RAVIKUMAR
the Debts Recovery Tribunal – Same was dismissed and the order attained finality – Bank issued notice prior to e-auction to the respondent borrowers calling upon the borrowers/ guarantor to repay the outstanding loan amount as demanded – Thereafter, issuance of e-notice by the Bank – statutory remedy available under the law is deprecated – Respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application u/s. 17, but the order of the tribunal indeed was appealable u/s. 18 subject to the compliance of condition of pre – deposit and without exhausting
Decision Date : 16-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8470/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
11  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. Vs VCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. – [2022] 17 S.C.R. 5672022 INSC 1193
Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,VIKRAM NATH,ABHAY S. OKA
and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB) – s. 19 – The appellant bank sanctioned a term loan to the respondent company, however, respondent failed to make the payment – Appellant filed an application for recovery of the amounts before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , (DRT) – Respondent recovery of the amounts due under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RDB Act’) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’) on 21.11.1997. The appellant sought a
Decision Date : 10-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8972/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
12  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 2392022 INSC 1180
Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI
entered into with respect to said project at Indore and then submits as under: – “15. That in a case registered against the Amrapali Group i.e. Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. This Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 12.09.2018 had directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal –
Decision Date : 07-11-2022 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
13  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS & ANR Vs PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 4372022 INSC 1022
Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,M.R. SHAH
decided. 3. If any party feel aggrieved due to this order, then they may file an appeal under section 17 of the Securitisation Act, 2002 before Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal , Mumbai. 4. No order as to cost.” 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by raise objections in the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal . Under the circumstances in the present case no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the designated authority keeping
Decision Date : 26-09-2022 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/16013/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
14  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs RAJKUMAR NAGPAL & ORS – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 12022 INSC 885
Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,SURYA KANT,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
debenture holders on 17 October 2019, 6 November 2019 and 14 January 2020 on whether or not an ICA should be entered into. Vistra provided updates regarding all these meetings to SEBI and RBI. In February 2020, Vistra A B C D E F G H 25 had filed proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ,
Decision Date : 30-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5247/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
15  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S. R.K. INDUSTRIES (UNIT-II) LLP Vs M/S. H.R. COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHER – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 6672022 INSC 872
Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,HIMA KOHLI,N.V. RAMANA
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Companies Act, 2013. These statutes provide for creation of multiple fora such as Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and
Decision Date : 26-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7722/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
16  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES POWER LIMITED Vs AXIS BANK LIMITED – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 1392022 INSC 710
Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,INDIRA BANERJEE
(BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies was handled by the High Courts. 47. The framework that had existed for insolvency and bankruptcy was inadequate, ineffective and resulted
Decision Date : 12-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4633/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
17  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs NARENDRA JAYANTILAL TRIVEDI & ANR. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 3602022 INSC 572
Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,M.R. SHAH
1993), the suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which was numbered as Transfer Application No. 95/1995. The DRT vide order dated 03.03.2000 decreed the said application and directed respondent No. 1 and the guarantors to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The Division Bench also passed an order that appropriate forum, which is going to examine the order dated 19.04.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in case No./Securitisation Application No. 171 of 2016, shall deal with the case independently and without
Decision Date : 13-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4026/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
18  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs S. P. VELAYUTHAM & ORS – [2022] 17 S.C.R. 6372022 INSC 509
Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,HEMANT GUPTA
as collateral security and a mortgage by deposit of title deeds is said to have been created way back in the year 1995-96; (ii) Alleging that the borrower defaulted in repayment of the loan, Indian Bank filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the year 1996 under Section
Decision Date : 04-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2752/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
19  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer
NKGSB COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs SUBIR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 11772022 INSC 238
Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Debts Recovery Tribunal II20, Chennai was pleased to allow S.A.No.399 of 2019, inter alia, holding that the procedure mandated under clauses (i) to (ix) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act had not been complied with by the secured creditor (Bank) and in any case, the appointment
Decision Date : 25-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1637/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
20  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SHRIKANT G. MANTRI Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 9452022 INSC 217
Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO
the respondent Bank, the successor-in-interest of the erstwhile Bank, filed a Recovery Petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Mumbai against the appellant-complainant for recovery of the balance amount due as on 26th December, 2002. The said petition was decreed by the Debts
Decision Date : 22-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11397/2016 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
21  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR & ORS. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 9502022 INSC 44
Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
of the SARFAESI Act, which would be against any measure referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act to file an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not available to the borrowers in the instant case. It is further submitted that there is no compliance with Rule further submitted that even otherwise in the present case, subsequently, the appellant has taken recourse under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 by filing O.A. No. 715 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Bengaluru and the
Decision Date : 12-01-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/257/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
22  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
ARCE POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/S. ALPHINE PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 10592021 INSC 820
Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO,SANJIV KHANNA
comply with Section 13(3A) of the Act and give a response to the petitioners’ representation dt.01.11.2016 and whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no such obligation on the part of the 1st respondent Bank? (b) Whether any of the reliefs claimed in the O.A. approached and filed a petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the enforcement proceedings in respect of the Subject Property including all steps taken right from issue of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. 7. The Debts Recovery Tribunal , Hyderabad by its judgment
Decision Date : 03-12-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7372/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
23  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR. Vs ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS. – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 5282021 INSC 784
Judge : M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA
Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited v. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 137 : [2017] 10 SCR 199 – relied on. 2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, preferred against the order passed by the Recovery Officer are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. The order passed by the DRAT setting aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is restored. [Para days in the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 – Bank preferred against the order of Recovery Officer. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned the delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The DRAT set AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR. v. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE &
Decision Date : 24-11-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6898/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
24  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
XLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS – [2021] 6 S.C.R. 10962021 INSC 924
Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
recover the decretal amount in accordance with provisions of s.25 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act – Appeal No.1/2020 pending consideration by Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur – According to respondent no.1 approximately a sum of Rs.29 crores was due and payable by appellant Viswanathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 herein. 5. It is not in dispute that Appeal No.1/2020 is pending consideration by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur. However, at the same time, according to respondent no.1 herein approximately a sum of
Decision Date : 27-10-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6518/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
25  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
S. KARTHIK & ORS. Vs N. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN & ORS. – [2021] 13 S.C.R. 10962021 INSC 534
Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO
27.2.2012. On 20.2.2012, the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed a Securitisation Application being S.A. No.69 of 2012 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -III, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT, Chennai’), thereby praying to quash the First Sale Notice dated 21.1.2012. The
Decision Date : 23-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5920/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
26  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SUMAN CHADHA & ANR. Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 3702021 INSC 386
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued for recovery of Rs. 28,82,25,942.24 plus interest. It was followed by a possession notice under section 13(4) in respect of two properties. (iii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed S.A. No. 367/ 2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -III,
Decision Date : 09-08-2021 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/28592/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
27  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
LAXMI PAT SURANA Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. – [2021] 2 S.C.R. 9242021 INSC 220
Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,A.M. KHANWILKAR
Adjudicating Authority, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.” 8. In para 7 of the said judgment, the Report of the Insolvency Law Committee of March 2018 was referred to as follows: the RDDB Act, 1993 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -3, Kolkata being O.A. No.130 of 2010 which is still pending for final adjudication and in that proceeding the said Principal Borrower as well as Corporate Debtor are appearing and several interim orders have been passed from time to
Decision Date : 26-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2734/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
28  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
A. NAVINCHANDRA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED & ORS. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 5972021 INSC 128
Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
Financial Corpn. v. Official Liquidator[(2005) 8 SCC 190] wherein it was stated: (SCC pp. 201-02, para 18) “18. In the light of the discussion as above, we think it proper to sum up the legal position thus: (i) A Debts Recovery Tribunal acting under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
Decision Date : 01-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4230/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
29  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK PVT. LIMITED Vs AMBUJ A. KASLIWAL & ORS. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 10012021 INSC 90
Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,S.A. BOBDE,A.S. BOPANNA
The respondents No. 1 to 3 are stated to have not adhered to the terms of settlement and the re-payment was not made. The appellant Bank, therefore, instituted recovery proceedings by filing an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’ for short), New Delhi in O.A. No.281 of 2015. Section 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the right conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the condition laid down in the
Decision Date : 16-02-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/538/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
30  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. Vs KETULBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL – [2021] 1 S.C.R. 10432021 INSC 59
Judge : ASHOK BHUSHAN,R. SUBHASH REDDY,M.R. SHAH
financial facility. The appellant filed O.A.No.325 of 2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Ahmedabad which is said to be pending. 3. On 31.08.2018, Bank of Baroda filed Company Petition No.CP(IB)1752/MB/2017 before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the Code to initiate the
Decision Date : 03-02-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5146/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
31  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
ACTION ISPAT AND POWER PVT. LTD. Vs SHYAM METALICS AND ENERGY LTD. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 7832020 INSC 699
Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,K.M. JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN
Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and insolvency is dealt with under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the
Decision Date : 15-12-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4041/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
32  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer
C. BRIGHT Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 9972020 INSC 633
Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,HEMANT GUPTA,L. NAGESWARA RAO
High Court. However, after the aforesaid judgment was rendered on 3.4.2014, the Act had been amended and sub-section 4A was inserted in Section 17 with effect from 1.9.2016. This provided a right to move an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal by a person who claimed tenancy is by way of an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , however, borrowers and other aggrieved persons are invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative statutory remedy. The Hon’ble High Courts
Decision Date : 05-11-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3441/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
33  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJAR Vs VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 3682020 INSC 490
Judge : DINESH MAHESHWARI,A.M. KHANWILKAR
recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders and respondent No. 2 in OA No. 172/2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Aurangabad12 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 199313. 6.3. Even when the
Decision Date : 14-08-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6347/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
34  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer
PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULE Vs VISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED – [2020] 5 S.C.R. 10382020 INSC 382
Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,INDIRA BANERJEE,ARUN MISHRA,VINEET SARAN,M.R. SHAH
term ‘banking company’ also means co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the RDB Act, 1993. Hence, with effect from the date of constitution of Debts Recovery Tribunal under RDB Act, 1993, the courts and authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as
Decision Date : 05-05-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5674/2009 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered
35  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 6262020 INSC 360
Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI
– State Bank of India (for short, “the Bank”) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, “the DRT”) at Madurai being I.A. No. 995/2017 in O.A. No. 11/ 2008, directing return of original documents – Exhibits A110 to A114 deposited by the Bank before the DRT in O.A. No. 11/2008. In property. The petitioner has challenged the possession notice dated 10.02.2011 in S.A. No. 225 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal . However, the Tribunal did not go into the other issues relating to the subsequent extension of the mortgage done by the
Decision Date : 24-04-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2373/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
36  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UCO BANK Vs NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. – [2020] 4 S.C.R. 6922020 INSC 282
Judge : HRISHIKESH ROY,R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA
to Debts Recovery Tribunal – Recovery certificate issued – However, recovery proceedings were adjourned sine die – Appellant submitted claim with Commissioner of Payment – Received Rs.1,59,82,634/- against claim of Rs.1,05,35,86,783.47/- – Meanwhile, Govt. of India issued O.M dated 3,19,09,000/- which was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal on coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks Act (‘RDDB Act’ for short) renumbered as O.A.No.2526/1999. On 05.08.2004 – DRT -I issued a recovery certificate against one of the Company – Shri Sitaram Mills
Decision Date : 05-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2046/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
37  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ಕನ್ನಡ – Kannada Disclaimer
K. VIRUPAKSHA & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 10202020 INSC 261
Judge : R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,S. ABDUL NAZEER
the loan and his account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) – Ultimately, the Bank took possession of the secured asset – Auction notice issued – Challenged by respondent no.2 – Rejected by High Court – Respondent no.2 filed application u/s.17(1) – Dismissed by Debts Recovery Tribunal The application seeking condonation of delay and consequently the main application were dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’ for short) through its order dated 12.06.2015. Pursuant thereto the Complainant is stated to have filed an Appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate
Decision Date : 03-03-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/377/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
38  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs MSTC LIMITED – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 4442020 INSC 72
Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. MSTC LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 501 of 2020) JANUARY 21, 2020 [R.F. NARIMAN AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – ss. 19, 20, 21 and 22 – Debts Recovery Tribunal
Decision Date : 21-01-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/501/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
39  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS – [2019] 17 S.C.R. 5592019 INSC 1310
Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,R.F. NARIMAN,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Article 226. Since the contours of jurisdiction of NCLT are defined in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (5) of Section 60 and also since the powers of the NCLT are defined in Sub-section (4) of Section 60, to be akin to those of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery
Decision Date : 03-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9170/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
40  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer
IDBI BANK LIMITED THROUGH DGM (LEGAL) Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF COMPANIES & ANR. – [2019] 15 S.C.R. 5492019 INSC 1156
Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
expenses incurred by him. 2.12 Soon after this order, one of the secured creditors of KOFL, State Bank of India (hereinafter “SBI”) approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Chennai (hereinafter “DRT”) for securing its interest and sought an injunction restraining the Official Liquidator
Decision Date : 17-10-2019 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/33825/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
41  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs A. J. AGROCHEM – [2019] 12 S.C.R. 8302019 INSC 1136
Judge : M.R. SHAH,ARUN MISHRA,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
creation of multiple fora such as Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy
Decision Date : 04-10-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5120/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
42  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
JIGNESH SHAH & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2019] 12 S.C.R. 6782019 INSC 1080
Judge : SURYA KANT,R. SUBHASH REDDY,R.F. NARIMAN
permits a plaintiff to present the same suit, if the Court of the first instance, returns a plaint from defect of jurisdiction or other causes of like nature, being unable to entertain it. In the present case, a secured creditor is not withdrawing a proceeding pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
Decision Date : 25-09-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/455/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
43  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BAJARANG SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. – [2019] 12 S.C.R. 3522019 INSC 1017
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,N.V. RAMANA,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 (44 of 2016). A B C D E F G H 363 under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within days from the date on which such measures had been taken: Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower. …… (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in
Decision Date : 11-09-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1371/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
44  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SHAKEENA & ANR. Vs BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 11 S.C.R. 3412019 INSC 922
Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,A.M. KHANWILKAR
Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act. Accordingly, constructive possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the respondent bank on 8th February, 2005. 3. The appellants then filed S.A. Nos.21 and 22 of 2005, by invoking Section 17 of the 2002 Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
Decision Date : 20-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8097/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
45  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
NARENDRA KUMAR Vs CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK & ORS. – [2019] 9 S.C.R. 12019 INSC 594
Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,S.A. BOBDE,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Terms and Conditions, as stipulated in Debts Recovery Tribunal (Salaries, Allowance and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Presiding Officer) Rules, 1998 and your retirement age is 62 years. Further, you are deputed by the Bank to DRAT, Allahabad, on 29.11.2001 and the term was extended
Decision Date : 30-04-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4489/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
46  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 5 S.C.R. 3132019 INSC 353
Judge : VINEET SARAN,R.F. NARIMAN
for law and justice, Leader of Opposition, etc. making wild, baseless, contemptuous allegations against the Constitutional functionaries of this Court. (viii) That a Resolution dated 19th May, 2014 was passed by all three learned Presiding Officers of the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Mumbai
Decision Date : 12-03-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/191/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
47  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer
SWARAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. – [2019] 1 S.C.R. 6822019 INSC 108
Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA
up petition – By the secured creditor/respondent-Bank, after obtaining decree from Debts Recovery Tribunal and a recovery certificate based thereon – Maintainability of the petition – Plea of debtor companies inter alia that the petition was barred by provisions in s.17 r/w. s.18 of Recovery Advs.), Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present case involves the right of a secured creditor to file a winding up petition after such secured creditor has obtained a decree from the Debts Recovery Tribunal
Decision Date : 29-01-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1291/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
48  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S HINDON FORGE PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GHAZIABAD & ANR. – [2018] 11 S.C.R. 10192018 INSC 1034
Judge : NAVIN SINHA,R.F. NARIMAN
s.13(4)(a), s.17 gets attracted, as this is one of the measures referred to in s.13(4) that is taken by the secured creditor under Chapter III – Thus, borrower/debtor can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under s.17 of the Act at the stage of the possession notice referred to in rr. secured debt. These arguments must therefore be rejected. [Para 14] [1055- G; 1056-A-B] 2.2 Section 17(3) is a provision which arms the Debts Recovery Tribunal to provide certain reliefs when applications are made before it by the borrower. One of the reliefs that can be given is
Decision Date : 01-11-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10873/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
49  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SUZUKI PARASRAMPURIA SUITINGS PVT. LTD. Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF MAHENDRA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS – [2018] 12 S.C.R. 9062018 INSC 937
Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,NAVIN SINHA,RANJAN GOGOI
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Ahmedabad in Original Application No.452 of 2000 reaffirming that the IFCI Ltd. Has assigned its dues in favour of the applicant. I beg to annex a copy of purshis dated 21.11.2011 filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Ahmedabad in Original
Decision Date : 08-10-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10322/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
50  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATA KRISHAMRAJU Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2018] 11 S.C.R. 392018 INSC 797
Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
Appellate Tribunal. The provisions relevant for our purposes are Sections 3 to 6. Section 3 deals with establishment of the Tribunal by the Central Government to be known as the Debts Recovery Tribunal . Section 4 talks of composition of the Tribunal. Section 5 deals with the Tribunals, to be known as the Debts Recovery Tribunal , to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal by or under this Act. A B C D E F G H 43 (2) The Central Government shall also specify, in the notification referred to in sub-section (1), the
Decision Date : 07-09-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/732/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
51  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs V. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. – [2018] 10 S.C.R. 9742018 INSC 711
Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,INDU MALHOTRA
dealing with insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceeding of such corporate debtor. (4) The National Company Law Tribunal shall be vested with all the powers of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as contemplated under Part III of this Code for the purpose of sub-section
Decision Date : 14-08-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3595/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
52  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs M/S ALLWYN ALLOYS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. – [2018] 4 S.C.R. 4772018 INSC 536
Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) as well as the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) after examining the plea taken by respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to hold that the document styled as Memorandum of Understanding dated 13th March, 2011, relied upon by respondent Nos.5 and bank shall not proceed with the matter in terms of the order obtained by them before Debts Recovery Tribunal so far as the property in question; b] Amount of Rs.25 Lacs shall be deposited in an interest earning deposit, by the respondent No.1 bank and profits
Decision Date : 17-05-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5248/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
53  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
P. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM Vs P. VIJAYAKUMAR & ANR. – [2018] 6 S.C.R. 6672018 INSC 289
Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,R. BANUMATHI
conducted at Debts Recovery Tribunal ; that the remaining amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and fifty thousand only) has to be given to the 1st defendant as cash ….” In respect of readiness and willingness on the part of respondent No.1 to perform his obligations under the suit agreement,
Decision Date : 28-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3353/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
54  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
RAKESH BIRANI (D) THROUGH LRS. Vs PREM NARAIN SEHGAL & ANR. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 7502018 INSC 253
Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,ARUN MISHRA
No.113 of 2013. The Debts Recovery Tribunal , Allahabad vide order dated 19th December 2013, has set aside the sale, the order was confirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal as well as by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence, the present appeal by this compliance has to be only after the confirmation of sale and not before it. Thus, various provisions of Rule 9 makes it clear that interpretation made by Debts Recovery Tribunal and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be correct. 10.
Decision Date : 21-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3156/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
55  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
ITC LIMITED Vs BLUE COAST HOTELS LTD. & ORS. – [2018] 5 S.C.R. 5162018 INSC 241
Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,S.A. BOBDE
The debtor filed a securitization application6 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’) against the taking over of the symbolic possession by the creditor. In the meanwhile, the creditor published the first auction sale notice7 with a reserve price of Rs. 403 shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A. (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured
Decision Date : 19-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2928/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
56  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DWARIKA PRASAD Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 292018 INSC 210
Judge : DIPAK MISRA,A.M. KHANWILKAR,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
has also been moved before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, which is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the aforesaid facts sought leave of the Court to permit withdrawal of the writ petition with the liberty to pursue before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
Decision Date : 06-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/148/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
57  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED Vs M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS – [2018] 1 S.C.R. 10962018 INSC 200
Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
2013, filed SA No. 182 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Chandigarh under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act challenging the action of the appellant invoking the measures under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. Within few days thereafter, i.e. on July 30, 2013, respondent No.1 also field filed by respondent No.1’s employee union and respondent No.4 respectively. On September 04, 2013, the respondents herein unconditionally withdrew SA No. 182 of 2013 filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Chandigarh. The appellant issued an auction notice dated November 21, 2013
Decision Date : 23-02-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/18/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
58  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
KUDRAT SANDHU Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2018] 2 S.C.R. 10052018 INSC 185
Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,DIPAK MISRA,A.M. KHANWILKAR
February 2018. DRT and DRAT 8. For the Debts Recovery Tribunal , the chart submitted by the learned Attorney General indicates that the selection process has been completed and appointments of Presiding officers have been made. This being the position, the selection process in respect of
Decision Date : 22-02-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/279/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
59  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
JAYANT VERMA & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2018] 2 S.C.R. 6792018 INSC 159
Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA
and the Guwahati High Court have held that the source of the power of Parliament to enact a law relating to the establishment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is Entry 11-A of List III which pertains to “administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all courts, except the
Decision Date : 16-02-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/134/2013 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Issue answered
60  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER Vs MATHEW K. C. – [2018] 1 S.C.R. 2332018 INSC 71
Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA
action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including the borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section.” 8. The Section 13(4) notice along with possession notice under Rule 8
Decision Date : 30-01-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1281/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
61  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED Vs SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. – [2017] 13 S.C.R. 7512017 INSC 1241
Judge : NAVIN SINHA,R.F. NARIMAN
and Rule 4 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (“Debts Recovery Rules”) would also make it clear that where a lawyer can do things on behalf of a party, it is expressly so mentioned unlike
Decision Date : 15-12-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/15135/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
62  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
AGARWAL TRACOM PVT. LTD. Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. – [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1642017 INSC 1146
Judge : ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,R.K. AGRAWAL
any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five from the date on which such measures had been taken: (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security arc in accordance with the provisions of this Act and
Decision Date : 27-11-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/19847/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
63  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
K. SlTARAM & ANR. Vs CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD. & ANR. – [2017] 4 S.C.R. 8502017 INSC 244
Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,R.K. AGRAWAL
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Mumbai. On 22.07.2005, the DRT passed a partial decree awarding a sum of Rs. 812.26 lakhs with 12 per G cent interest. (b) On 29.03.2006, the State Bank ofTravancore assigned the debts due from the complainant-Company to the Kotak Mahindra Bank
Decision Date : 21-03-2017 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2285/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
64  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC. – [2016] 9 S.C.R. 9852016 INSC 1157
Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,KURIAN JOSEPH
for the ‘ Debts Recovery Tribunal ‘ and the ‘Appellate Tribunal’ respectively. It would be clear that these provisions are referable to Entry 45 as being ancillary to banking, and expressly to Entry 95 List I inasmuch as the jurisdiction and power of courts is laid down for the special application along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the E date on which such measure had been taken: PROVIDED that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and
Decision Date : 16-12-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/12237/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
65  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs EIH LIMITED & ORS. – [2016] 8 S.C.R. 4372016 INSC 1107
Judge : PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,ASHOK BHUSHAN
2002 provided as follows: “34. Civil court not to have juri.sdictio11. – No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any .suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and following order on 10 .. 2000 (while disposing of Company Applications Nos. 1251-53 of 1999): This company application, praying to this Court to grant leave to the applicant Bank to proceed and prosecute further OA No. 1300 of 1997 filed by them against the respondent Company in the Debts Recovery Tribunal
Decision Date : 07-12-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11886/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
66  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs MUKESH JAIN & ANR. – [2016] 8 S.C.R. 4272016 INSC 1007
Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,ANIL R. DAVE
taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter, [may make an E application along with such fee, as may be prescribed) to the Debts Recovery Tribunal havingjurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunalis empowered by or underthis Act to detennine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority. in respect of any action taken or to
Decision Date : 08-11-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/210/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
67  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
ANITA INTERNATIONAL Vs TUNGABADRA SUGAR WORKS MAZDOOR SANGH – AND OTHERS – [2016] 6 S.C.R. 6352016 INSC 489
Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J.S. KHEHAR
300 of I 997, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as, the ORT, Bangalore) for the recovery of Rs.22,31,78,558.55. During the course of the instant ANITA INTERNATIONAL v. TUNGABADRA SUGAR WORKS MAZDOOR SANGH [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] proceedings, the is no conflict on the question of the applicability of Section 529-A read with Section 529 of the Companies Act to cases where the debtor is a company and is in liquidation. The conflict. if any, is in the view that the Debts Recovery Tribunal could sell the properties of the company in terms
Decision Date : 04-07-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6042/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
68  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M.C. MEHTA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2016] 7 S.C.R. 9622016 INSC 417
Judge : T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI
971 A B c D E F G (d) Proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal: As seen from H 972 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 7 S.C.R. the material on record, the consortium of banks has filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal recovery of their dues of Rs.1607,97,51, I 08 against the previous concessionaire and others. It is brought on record that in the said proceeding, by order dated 23.12.2015, the Debts Recovery Tribunal restrained outgoing concessionaire Mis. KMP Expressways Limited from receiving any
Decision Date : 13-05-2016 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/13029/1985 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : IAs disposed of
69  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
J. RAMESH KAMATH & ORS. Vs MOHANA KURUP & ORS. – [2016] 3 S.C.R. 1032016 INSC 371
Judge : J.S. KHEHAR,C. NAGAPPAN
compoundable offence and there was express bar in Section 320 that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. In Rumi Dhar although the accused had paid the entire due amount as per the settlement with the bank in the matter of recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ,
Decision Date : 04-05-2016 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/445/2016
70  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
AXIS BANK Vs SBS ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER – [2016] 2 S.C.R. 9202016 INSC 334
Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R. prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal havingjurisdiction or a competent court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balance amount from the borrower.” “11. Procedure for Recovery of shortfall of secured debt.­ (1) An application for recovery balance amount by any secured creditor pursuant to sub-section (10) of section 13 of the Act shall be presented to the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the form annexed as Appendix VI to these rules by the authorised officer or his agent or by a duly authorised legal practitioner, to the Registrar
Decision Date : 22-04-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4379/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
71  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANR Vs BIFR& ORS. – [2016] 11 S.C.R. 4192016 INSC 107
Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN
non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower: PROVIDED that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the · stage of communication of reasons sl;iall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal havingjurisdiction or a competent couri:, as the case may be, for recovery of thellilance amount from the borrower. (11) Without prejudice to the rights conferred on the
Decision Date : 29-01-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/614/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
72  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
VISHAL N. KALSARIA Vs BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2016] 1 S.C.R. 4192016 INSC 76
Judge : AMITAVA ROY,V. GOPALA GOWDA
Chapter, may apply to the Debts Recovery Tribunal _havingjurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measures had been taken. We agree wit~_the Mr. Vikas Singh that the words ‘any person’ are wide enough to include a lessee also. It is also possible to take a view 429 may file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter for restoration of possession in case he is dispossessed of the secured asset. But when we read subsection (3) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, we find that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has powers
Decision Date : 20-01-2016 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/52/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
73  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION P. LTD. Vs M/S. HARYANACONCAST LIMITED &ANR. – [2015] 15 S.C.R. 1022015 INSC 947
Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Companies Act has been H 120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 15S.C.R. A protected by permitting, wherever necessary, association of the Official Liquidator with the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the RDB Act. In our considered judgment, the same view is required to be taken before the Debts Recovery Tribunal . There is a right of further appeal under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal. On the other hand, if the view taken by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pegasus is accepted, B there shall be a conflict of rights and interest of the secured creditor who
Decision Date : 29-12-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3646/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
74  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2015] 14 S.C.R. 1182015 INSC 867
Judge : C. NAGAPPAN,M.Y. EQBAL
basis of settlement between the parties Debts Recovery Tribunal (ORT) directed to dispose of the mortgaged property – Property in question auction-sold pursuant to order of ORT – The prospective auction-purchaser asked the G appellant-Bank to get the property converted into freehold – The
Decision Date : 26-11-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5254/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
75  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL Vs BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2015] 9 S.C.R. 12015 INSC 545
Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J.S. KHEHAR
Mumbai 2008 (4) Mhlj424; Punnu Swami vs. The 4 A B c SUPREME COURT RC:PORTS [2015} 9 S.C.R. Debts Recovery Tribunal 2009 (3) BJ 401 – partly approved. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. 2009 (12) SCR 54: (2009) 8 sec 646 – referred to. the ROB Act and Section 29 of the Limitation Act : D “Sections 18 and 36 of the SARFAESI Act: 18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal E F G (1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal alongwith such fee, as may
Decision Date : 05-08-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5924/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
76  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
KESHAVLAL KHEMCHANDAND SONS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – [2015] 2 S.C.R. 512015 INSC 72
Judge : JASTI CHELAMESWAR,S.A. BOBDE
the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right H upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A. KESHAVLAL KHEMCHANDAND SONS PVT.
Decision Date : 28-01-2015 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/901/2014 | Direction Issue : SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
77  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGAR Vs INTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. – [2014] 11 S.C.R. 6052014 INSC 955
Judge : A.K. PATNAIK,V. GOPALA GOWDA
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recover}’ Tribunal and in case the borrower or a third-party succeeds, the Debts Recovery Tribunal F can restore possession of the secured assets to the borrower or a third-party. This view taken by the Bombay High Court in Mis Trade appellants have no option but to surrender possession to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, and move the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Sectio_n 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Such H a remedy, according to the appellants, is not actually available • • HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGAR v.
Decision Date : 03-04-2014 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/736/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
78  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
JAGDISH SINGH Vs HEERALAL AND OTHERS – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 2322013 INSC 734
Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub­ section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery C Tribunal under sub-section (1) of Section 1. (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken
Decision Date : 30-10-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9771/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
79  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs JAGJIT SINGH – [2013] 17 S.C.R. 3612013 INSC 664
Judge : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,RANJAN GOGOI
defrauding the C Bank – Compromise between Ban~ and accused – Debt due to the Bank paid pursuant to order of Debts Recovery Tribunal – Criminal proceedings quashed in view of the compromise – Held: – Offences ulss. 4201471 /PC against Bank, fall under the category of offences involving moral proceedings were initiated against him u/ss. 420/471 IPC. The respondent-accused settled the dispute with the Bank and repaid the loan amount to the Bank pursuant F to the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal . The respondent-accused moved application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. G High Court
Decision Date : 01-10-2013 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1580/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
80  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs DHARMINDER BHOHI AND OTHERS – [2013] 9 S.C.R. 4102013 INSC 619
Judge : DIPAK MISRA,ANIL R. DAVE
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the appeal by A Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal have the effect potentiality of creating a corrosion in the economic spine of the country. It exposits a factual expose’ which is not only perplexing but usher in a sense of the borrowers would get a reasonably fair deal and opportunity to get the matter adjudicated upon before the Debts Recovery Tribunal . The .effect of some of the provisions may be a bit harsh for some of the borrowers but on that ground the impugned C provisions of the Act cannot be said to
Decision Date : 13-09-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8486/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
81  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
GM, SRI SIDDESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANR. Vs SRI IKBAL & ORS. – [2013] 8 S.C.R. 5322013 INSC 556
Judge : RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,C.K. PRASAD
appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal u/s. 17. The remedy provided under E Section 17 is an efficacious remedy. The borrower did not avail of that remedy and further remedies from that order and instead directly approached the High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of us. Against the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower had a remedy of appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (ORT) under Section 17. The D remedy provided under Section 17 is an efficacious remedy. E F G H The borrower did not avail of that remedy
Decision Date : 22-08-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6989/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
82  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs V. NOBLE KUMAR & OTHERS – [2013] 10 S.C.R. 7622013 INSC 557
Judge : H.L. GOKHALE,JASTI CHELAMESWAR
prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken: Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section 1 of section 17.
Decision Date : 22-08-2013 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1218/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
83  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs PANDURANG KESHAV GORWARDKAR & ORS – [2013] 3 S.C.R. 2692013 INSC 317
Judge : JASTI CHELAMESWAR,MADAN B. LOKUR,RAJENDRA MAL LODHA
In the case filed by the appellant-Bank for recovery of its dues against a company, the Debts Recovery Tribunal gave its judgment on 19.7.2001 and issued the D recovery certificate on 21.8.2001. Consequently, the Recovery Officer, ORT, on 22.1.2004, auctioned the movable properties of whether their claims have to be adjudicated upon F by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, ‘DRT’) is likely to arise in a large number of cases where recoveries are sought to be made pursuant to the certificates issued by the DRT and, therefore, these appeals required
Decision Date : 07-05-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7045/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
84  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
T.P. VISHNU KUMAR Vs CANARA BANK P.N. ROAD, TIRUPPUR & ORS. – [2013] 1 S.C.R. 9772013 INSC 92
Judge : DIPAK MISRA,K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
– Administration of Justice. The respondent-Bank filed Original Application G against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 before Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of total amount of Rs. 1,59,51,477 .93 with interest @ 17%. The appellant and 977 H 978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1
Decision Date : 11-02-2013 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/1258/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
85  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. – [2013] 1 S.C.R. 4802013 INSC 48
Judge : D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU
B [2013] 1 S. C.R. 480 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.617-618 of 2013) JANUARY 22, 2013 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial C Institutions Act, 1993: Debt Recovery
Decision Date : 22-01-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/617/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
86  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
PRAVIN GADA AND ANOTHER Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2012] 13 S.C.R. 6112012 INSC 557
Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA
Karnataka3 and, in the ultimate eventuate, summed its conclusions. The relevant conclusions B are reproduced below: – “(i) A Debts Recovery Tribunal acting under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 would be entitled to order the sale and to sell the properties
Decision Date : 03-12-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8658/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
87  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S NEW HORIZON SUGAR MILLS LTD. Vs GOVT. OF PONDICHERRY TH. ADDL. SEC. & ANR. – [2012] 8 S.C.R. 8742012 INSC 430
Judge : JASTI CHELAMESWAR,ALTAMAS KABIR
auction purchaser. The appellant-Mill was directed to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal regarding its claim of refund of the access amount retained by the Bank. It was also made clear that as far as the properties B included in the impugned orders were concerned, it would be open to Pondicherry, to register the Sale Certificate issued in favour of M/s Parry Ltd. The learned Single Judge further directed the Appellant (Writ Petitioner in Writ c Petition No.1897 of 2006) to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SAR FAES I Act regarding their claim of refund
Decision Date : 27-09-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6673/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
88  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ਪੰਜਾਬੀ – Punjabi Disclaimer
GIAN SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER – [2012] 8 S.C.R. 7532012 INSC 419
Judge : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,ANIL R. DAVE
the bank in the matter of recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal . The accused prayed for her discharge on the grounds (i) having B regard to the settlement arrived at between her and the bank, no case for proceeding against her has been made out; (ii) the amount having already been paid
Decision Date : 24-09-2012 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CRIMINAL)…/8989/2010 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered
89  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
JITENDRA NATH SINGH Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ORS. – [2012] 13 S.C.R. 3392012 INSC 415
Judge : A.K. PATNAIK,SWATANTER KUMAR,S.H. KAPADIA
money decree from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘the ORT’) at Delhi against the debtor-company. The Canara Bank was a secured creditor of the debtor-company but its claim was pending before the same Tribunal. The Allahabad Bank had E taken out the sale proceedings before the prejudice to the proceedings initiated by them before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and they had never given up their claim. According to this respondent, E they have not been able to realize their entire dues as a result of taking out of the workmen’s portion out of their security. It is also
Decision Date : 21-09-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6755/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Matter Remitted back to company court
90  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S. OPTIEMUS INFRACOM LTD. ETC. Vs M/S. ISHAN SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ANR. – [2012] 6 S.C.R. 10892012 INSC 313
Judge : JASTI CHELAMESWAR,ALTAMAS KABIR
matter before the G Debts Recovery Tribunal , the proper qourse of action would have been to issue notice, and, if necessary, pass interim orders and after hearing the parties to pass final orders in the 1089 H 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A matter – The impugned judgment 2011, whereunder the property of the respondent/judgment-debtor Co. was put to auction. An application had been filed by the respondent­ company before the Debts Recovery Tribunal complaining of violation of the statutory rules which regulate the auction of property. Other grounds were also
Decision Date : 01-08-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5696/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
91  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
NITIN GUNWANT SHAH Vs INDIAN BANK & ORS. – [2012] 10 S.C.R. 382012 INSC 275
Judge : JASTI CHELAMESWAR,ALTAMAS KABIR,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
the dues, permission sought to sell the property in dispute and to utilize the sale proceeds for satisfaction of the dues – Bank also made the petitioner a party to the suit and sought his eviction from the property declaring him a trespasser – Suit of Bank transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal – of the property, on the ground that he was a trespasser without any right, title or interest. The suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal , after the 0 Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, came into force. The Tribunal by its order dated 19.6.2002
Decision Date : 10-07-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/22785/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
92  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. – [2012] 4 S.C.R. 2092012 INSC 200
Judge : ALTAMAS KABIR,JASTI CHELAMESWAR,S.S. NIJJAR
Tribunal shall have all jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all courts in matters relating to service. Reference was also made to other Tribunals, such as, the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, the National Green Tribunal E and also the Debts Recovery Tribunal , observed that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a tribunal and a creature of C statute and it does not have inherent powers which existed in the civil courts. 21. Mr. Sibal also submitted that apart from the decisions rendered in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund (supra), the Supreme Court
Decision Date : 04-05-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4196/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
93  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA Vs C.B.I. AND ANR. – [2012] 3 S.C.R. 2782012 INSC 85
Judge : P. SATHASIVAM,JASTI CHELAMESWAR
also granted bail. (iv) State Bank of Hyderabad has also lodged an FIR and the same is under investigation. No charge sheet has been submitted so far. D E F (c) State Bank of India and 17 other banks filed O.A. No. G 11 of 2008, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (ORT), Ahmedabad
Decision Date : 10-02-2012 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/348/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
94  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs O.L. OF ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED – [2011] 15 S.C.R. 3362011 INSC 787
Judge : G.S. SINGHVI,H.L. DATTU
passed winding up order and appointed Official Liquidator. Thereafter, B the appellant filed a suit for recovery of the amount credited to respondent. In due course, the suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal , Bombay. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal,
Decision Date : 08-11-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9630/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
95  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
NARAYAN CHANDRA GHOSH Vs UCO BANK & ORS. – [2011] 3 S.C.R. 10242011 INSC 222
Judge : D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU
Tribunal 50% of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or as determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal , whichever is less – H<?wever, under the third proviso to the sub-section, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to reduce the amount, for E the reasons to be entertaining borrower’s appeal without insisting on pre-deposit was clearly unsustainable – In the notice issued to the borrower u/s. 13(2) of the Act, the debts due was Rs. 52, 42, 47 41 – – Since the Debts Recovery Tribunal had not determined the debt due, the borrower is directed to deposit with
Decision Date : 18-03-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2681/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
96  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV AND ORS. Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. – [2011] 2 S.C.R. 6022011 INSC 106
Judge : D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU
Nevertheless, the High Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo in the matter for a period of 10 weeks from the date of its order, so as to enable the appellants to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short the “DRT”) under Section 17 of the Act. E 10. Thereafter, the may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the B n:iatter within forty-five days from the date on which such ~easures had been taken: Rrovided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by
Decision Date : 07-02-2011 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/338/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
97  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BHARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED Vs IFCI LIMITED – [2010] 15 S.C.R. 9932010 INSC 837
Judge : CYRIAC JOSEPH,ALTAMAS KABIR
a third-party financier to pay off the entire dues of the Bank, which it did – D ACE assigned its rights to IFCI Ltd – Question regarding auction of the assets of Petitioner Company – Proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – Stayed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Writ contemnors had any knowledge of the stay order passed by Supreme Court – 0 Contempt petition accordingly dismissed. In relation to an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal , on an application· filed by the Petitioner under Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and
Decision Date : 30-11-2010 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/29421/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
98  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M/S J.P. BUILDERS & ANR. Vs A. RAMADAS RAO & ANR. – [2010] 15 S.C.R. 5382010 INSC 799
Judge : ANIL R. DAVE,P. SATHASIVAM
granting costs to the plaintiff; and (vi) whether the High Court was justified in issuing the directions to the Bank vis-a-vis the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal . E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. “Readiness and willingness” is enshrined in clause (c) of s. 16(c) of On 26.04.2006, the Bank rejected the OTS offer of Rs. 148 lakhs stating that since the amount offered is very low, the Bank has decided to pursue the recovery application filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal , (hereinafter referred to as ‘ORT’) Chennai for the recovery of the dues of
Decision Date : 22-11-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9821/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
99  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs M/S. ALLIED BEVERAGE COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND ORS. – [2010] 11 S.C.R. 11232010 INSC 665
Judge : B.S. CHAUHAN,P. SATHASIVAM
of 2007 wherein the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Mis Allied Beverage Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter F referred to as “the Company”) modifying the order dated 09.06.2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal -Ill, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
Decision Date : 01-10-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8443/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
100  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
ZONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs M/S. DEVI ISPAT LTD. & ORS. – [2010] 9 S.C.R. 4172010 INSC 462
Judge : P. SATHASIVAM,ANIL R. DAVE
Article 226 of the Constitution, was not maintainable because the plea s regarding return of the title deed, deposited as security, was a civil dispute and the appropriate forum for ·such remedy was Debts Recovery Tribunal or civil court and not a writ court. c Dismissing the appeal, Debts Recovery Tribunal c (in short “ORT”) or civil court. He further submitted that if the writ of mandamus issued by the High Court is maintained, the right of the nationalized Bank which is holding public money would affect its right before the ORT. On the other hand, Mr. C.A.
Decision Date : 30-07-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6077/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Leave a comment