Landmark Judgments on DRT by Supreme Court of India: Read all Latest Updates on and about DRT Act

Landmark Judgments on DRT by Supreme Court of India: Read all Latest Updates on and about DRT Act

1	Directorate of Enforcement Vs Niraj Tyagi & Ors – [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3112024 INSC 106 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI [2024] 2 S.C.R. 315 Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi & Ors. at a fair market value and in a transparent manner. It appears that a series of litigations under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and High Court had ensued between the parties. 7. IHFL on 01.07.2021 ultimately sold the Decision Date : 13-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/843/2024
2	Authorised 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 letters dated 27.03.2017 and 06.04.2017 respectively. 15. During the pendency of the proceedings before the DRT as aforesaid a fresh auction of the Secured Asset was conducted by the appellant bank on 13.03.2019, and it appears that pursuant to the same the sale was completed at an Decision Date : 02-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/235/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
3	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer TOTTEMPUDI SALALITH Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 4922023 INSC 923 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,ANIRUDDHA BOSE 2015, could form subject matter of an application u/s.7 IBC; whether the the banks having approached the DRT , were barred under the doctrine of election from approaching the NCLT for recovery of same set of debts; and whether the date of default should go back to the date on which the proceedings – Doctrine of election – Application of – Plea of corporate debtor that the banks having approached the DRT , were barred under the doctrine of election from approaching the NCLT for recovery of same set of debts: Held: Doctrine of election embodied in the law of evidence, Decision Date : 18-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2348/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
4	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 6662023 INSC 869 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,BELA M. TRIVEDI Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’) were initiated by the Appellant Bank in respect of the Subject Property mortgaged with it. (iii) After certain proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT Application No. 115 of 2019 on 30.06.2019, before the DRT for restraining the Appellant Bank from taking any further steps including the sale and confi rmation of sale in respect of the Subject Property, on the ground that the Bank- the secured creditor had failed to make proper valuation further with the proposed auction sale, pending the main application. The DRT Mumbai vide the order dated 11.11.2019 refused to grant the ad interim relief as prayed for in I.A. No. 822 of 2019. (vi) The Respondent no.1 being aggrieved by the said order passed by the DRT , preferred a Decision Date : 04-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1902/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : M.A. dismissed.
5	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 between April 2022 & June 2023, the Bank attempted eight auctions but all failed. 8. In the meantime, the borrowers preferred a Securitization Application being SA No. 46 of 2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (for short, “ DRT ”) inter alia challenging the demand notice issued Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also for quashing of the sale notice dated 25.03.22 in respect of the secured asset. It is not in dispute that the said application as on date is still pending before the DRT . 9. It appears that the borrowers informed the Bank that they were trying Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5542/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
6	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer AXIS BANK LIMITED Vs NAREN SHETH & ANR. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 5812023 INSC 820 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Limitation Act will have no application in the present case inasmuch as the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT cannot be said to be before a Court or Tribunal having no jurisdiction – Respondent No.2, being a Secured Creditor, would defi nitely have a right 252 20 1999 SCC Online Cal 58 21 In short, “SARFAESI Act” 591 d) Respondent No.2 fi led an Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ), Mumbai registered as Original Application No. 726 of 2014 on 03.06.2014. e) Corporate Debtor acknowledged their liability in the Decision Date : 12-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2085/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
7	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer G. VIKRAM KUMAR Vs STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 6242023 INSC 475 Judge : M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR 17 to approach the DRT – In view of the availability of the alternative statutory remedy available by way of proceedings/appeal u/s. 17, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition u/Art. 226 in which the e- auction notice was under challenge – Moreover, the favour of the respondent no. 1 with respect to Flat no.6401 was already held to be void by the DRT – If the respondent no. 1 would have approached the DRT against the e–auction notice he would have been non-suited in view of the earlier order passed by the DRT Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3152/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
8	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 concerned with the SARFAESI Act as such. The matter had travelled to the High Court from proceedings under the DRT Act. There was, thus, no occasion for the High Court to pronounce on the validity of section 16-B of the HPGST Act based on what was held by its coordinate Bench in M/s “guarantors”, hereafter). The loan account of the borrower became irregular. A recovery suit was instituted by PNB against the borrower and the guarantors for Rs. 42.29 lacs. Upon introduction of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity “ DRT Act”, Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8980/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
9	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 parties – Financial defaults were committed by the respondent – Demand notice u/s. 13 of the SARFAESI Act was issued by appellant- bank – Demand remained unmet – Appellant declared that it had taken possession of the suit property – Respondent filed securitisation application before the DRT determination of the rights of the parties – On appeal, held: It is settled that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in respect of matters which a DRT or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine in respect of any action A B C D E F G H 859 taken “or to be taken in Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2924/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
10	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 difficulty being faced by parties on account of non-appointment of members in DRTs and DRATs. M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. v. NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.] A B C D E F G H 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. He requested that the matters before DRT availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
11	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs C. NATARAJAN & ANR – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 10672023 INSC 341 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA the DRT for the extension of time to deposit the balance amount – DRT directed the Authorized officer to maintain status quo – In appeal, the DRAT permitted the Authorized Officer to proceed with fresh auction without, however, vacating the order of status quo passed earlier – Writ petition by 23rd October, 2017, as per the terms of rule 9(4). On facts, the contesting respondent was arranging for funds when he received the summons from the DRT on 10th October, 2017. It is, therefore, clear that at least till that date, the contesting respondent was lacking in financial Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2545/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
12	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
13	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 property purchased by the appellant-auction purchaser – DRT confirmed the sale in favour of the appellant – In writ petition, the High Court set aside the e–auction and sale certificate – On appeal, held: High Court ought not to have entertained Writ Petition as there was a remedy of appeal DRAT – By entertaining the writ petition straightway under Art. 226/227 challenging the order passed by the DRT , the High Court allowed/permitted the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – There was no breach of r. Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7402/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
14	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 date of the application. That the “debt” means any liability inclusive of interest. [Para 13][569-D-F] 1.2 An appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is permissible against the order passed by the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Under Section 17, the scope of enquiry is to the steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets. Therefore, whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the ‘debt Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8969/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
15	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 to defend the proceedings, but in addition also filed a Civil Suit in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge on the finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction as the same exclusively vested with the DRT – However, on appeal the Division Bench of the High court restored Decision Date : 10-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8972/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
16	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 – Real Estate Project-Amrapali Group of companies – Applicant has filed I.A challenging the proceedings/order passed by DRT -III – Applicant had entered into agreement with the Amrapali Group for developing a colony on partnership basis – As per the agreement an entitlement of 40% of the share selling – The applicant was informed that his presence was required before the DRT -III, New Delhi to explain the details with regard to the project in pursuance of the writ petition filed against Amrapali Group – DRT – III by its order, directed the registry to issue a request letter which Decision Date : 07-11-2022 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
17	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS AND BODY BUILDING COMPANY LIMITED – [2022] 14 S.C.R. 9852022 INSC 1088 Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) “5. In our opinion, the Decision Date : 14-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7170/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
18	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 borrower and secured creditor and/or between any other third party and aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings before DRT u/s. 17 – On facts, the High Court did not commit any error in [2022] 13 S.C.R. 437 437 A B C D E F G H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS any proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS v. PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED [M. R. SHAH, J.] A B C D E F G H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the steps taken Decision Date : 26-09-2022 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/16013/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
19	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Vs GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 8402022 INSC 991 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,M.R. SHAH (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) “5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by Decision Date : 20-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4956/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
20	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs MR. VIJAY SITARAM DANDNAIK & ANR. – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 3802022 INSC 887 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,S. ABDUL NAZEER the Corporate Debtor – Bank also filed application before DRT for issue of certificate of recovery, wherein by order dated 01.11.2016, the DRT directed the corporate debtor and others including respondent no. 1 to jointly and severally pay to the Bank – In a parallel proceeding, the High that the claim of the Financial Creditor was barred by limitation – On appeal, held: Order of the DRT in the Original Application filed by the Bank u/s. 19 of the Act, 1993, is dated 01.11.2016 – It is only thereafter that the Corporate Debtor issued Balance and Security Confirmation letter Decision Date : 30-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2277/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
21	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 also improve Ease of Doing Business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating NCLT and DRT as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals, respectively, for resolution Decision Date : 26-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7722/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
22	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 11122022 INSC 777 Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,INDIRA BANERJEE settlement agreement on the basis of which such interest had been claimed. (viii) The High Court had, by its aforesaid order dated 19.10.2018, directed DRT to determine the interest payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant. Since no determination has been done by the DRT , the No.3 had been legally advised that the interest for the loans cannot be 22% as stated in the revoked settlement but 12.85% and that the rate of interest will be subject to the decision of the DRT , Mumbai. (ii) Financial Statement for 2015-2016 (Pages 19-30 of IA 125766), wherein similar Decision Date : 01-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/84/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
23	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
24	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. R.S. INFRA-TRANSMISSION LTD. Vs SAURININDUBHAI PATEL AND ORS. – [2022] 6 S.C.R. 9302022 INSC 672 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA referred to as the “Bank”) filed an O.A. bearing No. 424 of 1999 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “ DRT ”) on 25.05.2006 for recovery of debt and enforcement of security against the original respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (original borrowers). Recovery Mehsana got attached in pursuance of the above Recovery Order/Certificate. 2.3 A proclamation of sale of the properties came to be issued by the Recovery Officer, DRT on 28.11.2006 fixing the public auction on 08.01.2007. As per the proclamation of the sale, the amount due and payable was Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3469/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
25	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs DR. VIJAY MALLYA – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 3842022 INSC 700 Judge : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,UDAY UMESH LALIT not disputed that such orders were passed restraining the concerned respondents including Respondent No.3 and that the orders were passed in proceedings arising from O.A. No.766 of 2013 before DRT Bengaluru. The present proceedings before this court have also arisen from the very same O.A. Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/421/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
26	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs A. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR. – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 10722022 INSC 630 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO,A.S. BOPANNA (“ DRT ” for short) for issuance of Debt Recovery Certificates in terms of the said compromise entered into between the parties. The said applications came to be allowed by the DRT vide orders dated 31st March, 2017 and 30th June, 2017, and separate Recovery Certificates dated 7th June, Counsel, on the contrary, submitted that the cause of action has merged into the order of issuance of the Recovery Certificate by the DRT and therefore, by application of the doctrine of merger, the debt no more survives. Shri Viswanathan further submitted that the initiation of CIRP by KMBL Decision Date : 30-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/689/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
27	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs M/S RCM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 10902022 INSC 584 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO by filing an application being SA No. 340/2018 before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the DRT ”). However, no stay was granted by the DRT in the said application. It is submitted that on the contrary, an order came to be passed on 29th October by the learned DRT , whereby confirmation of sale was stayed, subject to deposit of Rs.12 crore by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor failed to do so. After that, with mala fide intent, instead of making payment, a petition came to be filed under Section 10 of the IBC by the Decision Date : 18-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4750/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
28	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 not open for the Division Bench to pass an order permitting the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal and also make observations that any of the observations made by the DRT as well as by Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition shall be ignored and/or shall not 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. Decision Date : 13-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4026/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
29	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs KRISHIDHAN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 11552022 INSC 428 Judge : SURYA KANT,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD same debt; one for the purpose of the DRT and another for the purpose of adjudication under the IBC. Finally, the NCLAT held that recourse to Section 18 of the Limitation Act was not available to the appellant. 7. In the present appeal, the appellant has appeared through Mr Niranjan Reddy, counsel, while Mr Shyam Divan, senior counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 7 2020 SCC Online NCLAT 417 (“V Padmakumar”) 8 “Limitation Act” 9 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 972 of 2020 10 “NCLAT” 11 “ DRT ” A B C D E F G H 1159 8. The NCLT placed reliance on Decision Date : 18-04-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/910/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
30	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS Vs MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 2542022 INSC 192 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,M.R. SHAH replied by Bank – However, thereafter the Recovery Officer dismissed the application and forfeited 10% of the amount deposited– Appeal filed by respondent no.1, dismissed by DRT – Appeal before DRAT, no interim relief granted – Respondent-Bank herein sought to put the property to considering the final decision of DRAT – Order passed by DRT confirming the order passed by the Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount deposited by the auction purchaser was yet to be decided by DRAT – Main appeal was yet to be decided by DRAT on merits – High Court made the proceedings Decision Date : 16-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1302/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
31	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF BARODA Vs M/S KARWA TRADING COMPANY & ANR. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 11002022 INSC 169 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.R. SHAH application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act before DRT – DRT passed interim order directing release / handover of possession of the mortgaged property to the borrower on deposit of Rs.48.65 lakhs – Bank filed appeal before DRAT which was dismissed – Single Judge of High Court set aside the passed by DRT & DRAT on ground that the orders were in contravention of s.13(8) of SARFAESI Act – Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge and directed the bank to release the secured property (residential house) on the borrower depositing a further sum of Rs.17 lakhs to the bank Decision Date : 10-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/363/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
32	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. Vs ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 2912022 INSC 49 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,HEMANT GUPTA up petition in the instant case solely on the ground that there is no other person willing to substitute the original creditor in terms of Rule 101. Here, due to the lack of advertisement of the winding petitions, it appears that the secured creditors of KOFL were constrained to approach the DRT ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] A B C D E F G H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R. DRT to secure its interest. Based on this, vide order dated 13.12.2013, the DRT had directed that the amount to be returned to KOFL be attached so that the banks have Decision Date : 17-01-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5766/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
33	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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. petition before DRT challenging the enforcement proceedings in respect of the subject property including all steps taken right from issue of notice under s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act – DRT dismissed borrower’s application – Decision Date : 03-12-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7372/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
34	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED Vs UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 5322021 INSC 794 Judge : M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA questions required to be dealt with by the DRT in the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act – Assignee has already initiated the proceedings u/s.13 which can be challenged by the appellant – Thus, the High Court justified in rejecting plaint/dismissing the suit in view of bar u/s.34 of and/or whether any amount is due and payable by the plaintiff, are all questions which are required to be dealt ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED v. UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. A B C D E F G H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. with and considered by the DRT Decision Date : 26-11-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6669/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
35	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
36	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs ANKITA SINHA & ORS. – [2021] 10 S.C.R. 12021 INSC 624 Judge : HRISHIKESH ROY,A.M. KHANWILKAR,C.T. RAVIKUMAR submission thus is that the Tribunal does not have any inherent powers. 10.2 Similarly, Justice S.H. Kapadia (as his Lordship then was) in Transcore Vs. Union of India3, opined on behalf of a Division Bench that, “ 67. …The DRT is a tribunal, it is the creature of the statute, it has no Decision Date : 07-10-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/12122/2018 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Legal issue answered
37	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 application of Appellants and Respondent No. 2 to 4, DRT vide order dated 27.02. 2012 granted interim stay for 30 days on the sale subject to the deposit of the 50% of outstanding amount – On 28.03.2012 one of the mortgaged properties was sold by the Bank through a private treaty for Rs. 12.25 entitled – DRT set aside the Second Sale Notice and the consequent sale of mortgaged [2021] 13 S.C.R.1096 1096 A B C D E F G H 1097 properties – Directed Respondent-Bank to refund the amount paid by auction purchaser along with 10% Interest and refund of surplus sum of Rs. 4.48 Decision Date : 23-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5920/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
38	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HEMRAJ RATNAKAR SALIAN Vs HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 5292021 INSC 408 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,S. ABDUL NAZEER provides for the right of appeal to any person including the borrower to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ). Section 17 has been amended by Act No. 44 of 2016 providing for challenging the A B C D E F G H 533 measures to recover secured debts (for short, “the Amendment”). tenant claiming under the borrower. In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra2 this Court has held that DRT can not only set aside the action of the secured creditor but even restore the status quo ante. Therefore, an alternative remedy was available to the appellant to challenge Decision Date : 17-08-2021 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/843/2021 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
39	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 Delhi (‘ DRT -III’ for short), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the DRT -III declined to grant any interim relief against the physical possession of the aforesaid properties. (iv) The petitioners filed an appeal but could not deposit Rs. 7 crores being 25% of the amount demanded the notice under Section 13(2). Eventually the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.03.2015. (v) However, on 01st April, 2015, the petitioners secured a conditional order of stay from DRT -III, New Delhi in S.A. No. 367/ 2014 whereby the petitioners were required to deposit a sum of Rs. Decision Date : 09-08-2021 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/28592/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
40	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) Vs C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 10612021 INSC 380 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years –Recovery order by the DRT and the recovery certificate issued in favour of the Bank in 2017 gave a fresh cause of action to the Bank to initiate a petition u/s. 7 – Offer of one time settlement of filed an application in the NCLT, for permission to place additional documents on record including the final judgment and order/decree dated 27.3.2017 and the Recovery Certificate dated 25.5.2017, enabling the Appellant Bank to recover Rs.52 crores odd. The judgment and order/decree of the DRT Decision Date : 04-08-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1650/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
41	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer LALIT KUMAR JAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 10752021 INSC 297 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,L. NAGESWARA RAO against the personal guarantor in a court or tribunal and a resolution process or liquidation is initiated against the corporate debtor. Thus if A, an individual is the subject of a resolution process before the DRT and he has furnished a personal guarantee for a debt owed by a company B, in event a resolution process is initiated against B in an NCLT, the provision results in transferring the proceedings going on against A in the DRT to NCLT. [Para 95][1156-C-F] 6. The non-obstante provision under Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over other prevailing enactments. This Decision Date : 21-05-2021 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/245/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
42	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs BISHAL JAISWAL & ANR. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 5242021 INSC 254 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,HRISHIKESH ROY to the proceedings under the Code, as far as may be applicable. For, Section 238A predicates that the provisions of Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLAT, the DRT or the Debt Recovery Appellate Decision Date : 15-04-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/323/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
43	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 For, Section 238A predicates that the provisions of Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLAT, the DRT or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. After enactment of Section 238A of the Code and acknowledged the debt time and again, lastly on 8.12.2018 and thus the application filed on 13.2.2019 was within limitation. 6 for short, “the 1993 Act” 7 for short, “ DRT ” 8 for short, “the CIRP” 9 for short, the “Adjudicating Authority” or “NCLT”, as the case may be. LAXMI PAT SURANA Decision Date : 26-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2734/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
44	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SESH NATH SINGH & ANR. Vs BAIDYABATI SHEORAPHULI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 8062021 INSC 199 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,HEMANT GUPTA be civil proceedings in a Court – Moreover, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act under s.13(4) are appealable to the DRT under s.18 of the SARFAESI Act – Argument that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would not qualify for exclusion under s.14 of the Limitation Act, because and bankruptcy would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also ease business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. The IBC seeks to designate the NCLT and DRT as the Adjudicating Authorities for resolution Decision Date : 22-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9198/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
45	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 be permissible, but not entire waiver – When further amount is due and payable in discharge of decree/recovery certificate issued by DRT , the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion against the mandatory requirement projected the case to indicate that the recovery certificate ordered by the DRT is for the sum of Rs.145 Crores with interest at 9% per annum and the amount realised by the Bank from the compensation amount payable to respondent No.3 is itself a sum of Rs.152,81,07,159/- and as such there Decision Date : 16-02-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/538/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
46	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. Vs M/S HOTEL POONJA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. – [2021] 1 S.C.R. 4952021 INSC 35 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,INDIRA BANERJEE for recovery of dues – A settlement was reached between the Assignor Bank and the corporate debtor – Accordingly, DRT issued a Recovery Certificate on 27.03.2003 – Corporate debtor again failed to comply with the settlement – Thereafter, an agreement between the Assignor Bank and the appellant entered into, the appellant was substituted as applicant in place of the Assignor Bank in DRT and an amended Recovery Certificate was issued on 13.12.2012 – On 27.07.2018, the appellant filed application u/s. 7 of the IBC against the corporate debtor for initiation of Corporate Decision Date : 21-01-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4221/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
47	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 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 markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also improve Ease of Doing Business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating NCLT and DRT as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms Decision Date : 15-12-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4041/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
48	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 without examining the context and scheme of the statute may not serve the purpose of the statute. [Para 7] [1004-B-D] 2. The DRT Act was first enacted to streamline the recovery of public dues but the proceedings under the said Act have not given desirous results. Therefore, the Act this Court4. This Court observed that when Civil Courts failed to expeditiously decide suits filed by the banks, the DRT Act was enacted, however it did not provide for assignment of debts to Securitisation companies. The Act which was enacted thereafter in 2002 sought to further empower Decision Date : 05-11-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3441/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
49	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DR. VIJAY MALLYA Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 6582020 INSC 523 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,ASHOK BHUSHAN In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners (‘banks’, for short) before DRT , Bengaluru seeking recovery of Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine and Paise Thirty Two an oral undertaking was given on 26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they would not alienate or dispose of their properties. One of the prayers made before DRT , Bengaluru was:- “(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US$ 75 million,…” (B) Decision Date : 31-08-2020 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)/2175/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
50	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 advances and facilities, its account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 08.07.2011 – Recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders u/s.19 of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 before the DRT was started – On or proceedings were pending before DRT , on or about 21.03.2018, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the Code, in Form 1 as provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 201614, for initiation of CIRP Decision Date : 14-08-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6347/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
51	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 DRT – Respondent no. 3-borrower had availed of financial credit from the bank, for which the respondent no. 2-guarantor had offered its immovable property by way of mortgage to the Bank – The borrower committed default – The bank filed O.A. No. 11/2008 before the DRT – Thereafter, symbolic possession of the secured assets – The guarantor filed a petition challenging the possession notice by the bank, which came to be rejected by the DRT – The secured assets were auctioned and a sale certificate in respect of the secured assets was issued to the appellant – Before the Decision Date : 24-04-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2373/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
52	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SHYAM SAHNI Vs ARJUN PRAKASH AND OTHERS – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1172020 INSC 319 Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,R. BANUMATHI 2011 before DRT , New Delhi and the same was decreed by DRT and SHYAM SAHNI v. ARJUN PRAKASH AND ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] A B C D E F G H 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. RC No.172/2012 was issued by the Bank of India and the recovery proceedings are still going jurisdiction of the DRT for recovery of the Bank SHYAM SAHNI v. ARJUN PRAKASH AND ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] A B C D E F G H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. dues when the Bank of India is not made a party to the suit. It was further submitted that there is already an order of Decision Date : 19-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2210/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
53	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF BARODA Vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. – [2020] 5 S.C.R. 4922020 INSC 299 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,DEEPAK GUPTA petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) for recovery of US $1,400,000. Those proceedings are being contested by the Bank of Baroda and it appears that the proceedings before the DRT are still pending and we make it clear that anything said by us in this appeal will not affect Decision Date : 17-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/17/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
54	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 the parties to adduce evidence. Further in respect of post take over period a Suit No.4489/96 was filed which was transferred to DRT and registered as O.A.No.1114/2000 which has remained pending as respondent No.2 had proceeded to BIFR. In that circumstance if the appellant herein had chosen the DRT , Mumbai and is stated to be adjourned sine die. The said proceedings shall now stand revived. In the said recovery proceedings in R.C.No.269/2004 the appellant is permitted to bring on record the respondents. The respondents are reserved the liberty of putting forth Decision Date : 05-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2046/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
55	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 Tribunal ( DRT ) for delay – Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dismissed appeal– Respondent no.2 filed complaint u/s.200, CrPC against appellants who were working as Deputy General Managers in the Bank (accused no.1) alleging connivance with auction purchaser which caused wrongful loss to him – FIR of classifying the account as NPA or in the manner in which the property was valued/auctioned, the DRT is vested with power to set aside such auction at the stage after the secured creditor invokes power u/s.13 – Though in the instant case the application filed by Complainant before DRT Decision Date : 03-03-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/377/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
56	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer CANARA BANK Vs P. SELATHAL AND ORS. ETC.ETC. – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 9442020 INSC 234 Judge : M.R. SHAH,INDIRA BANERJEE,UDAY UMESH LALIT created a equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds – The original borrower failed to repay the loan amount – The DRT proceeded ex- parte against the Guarnator and directed the principal borrower, its partners and the Guarantor pay the sum of the term loan with interest – The Guarantor filed I.A. in 2008 against the order of the DRT , for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 27.8.2003, however, the same was dismissed – After seven years from the date of the decree dated 27.8.2003 passed by the DRT , the respondents-plaintiffs filed two suits to declare the order dated 27.8.2003 Decision Date : 28-02-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1863/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
57	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs MSTC LIMITED – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 4442020 INSC 72 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN respondent- Company, a sum of Rs. 222,51,00,000/- was owed by the respondent – The said I.A. was allowed by DRT – The respondent filed an appeal against the said order before the DRAT – While pending appeal, a review application was filed by the respondent before the DRT – Thereafter, the appeal earlier was withdrawn – Meanwhile, an application was filed to condone a delay of 28 days in filing the review petition before the DRT – Application was dismissed by the DRT – Writ Petition – The High Court held that no appeal would be maintainable against the dismissal of the review Decision Date : 21-01-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/501/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
58	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.v. BABULAL LADE & ORS. Vs BABULAL LADE & ORS. – [2019] 14 S.C.R. 4852019 INSC 1318 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR follows: “126. While enacting the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act, Parliament was aware of the law laid down by this Court wherein priority of the State dues was recognized. If Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of banks, financial institutions, or other secured creditors on Decision Date : 04-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/232/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
59	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 jurisdiction and powers of NCLT – In contrast, Sub-sections (4) and (5) of s.60 of IBC, 2016 give an indication respectively about the powers and jurisdiction of the NCLT – Sub-section (4) of s.60 of IBC, 2016 states that the NCLT will have all the powers of the DRT as contemplated under Part III of Code for the purposes of Sub- section (2) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.60. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: ss.60, 179 – Under s.179 (1), it is the DRT which is the Adjudicating Authority in relation to insolvency matters of individuals and firms – This is in contrast to Decision Date : 03-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9170/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
60	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 the interest of all creditors – Clearly, the submission for the Petitioner that the winding up petition deserves to be dismissed as all creditors of KOFL have been satisfied is belied by the existence of the proceedings before the DRT – The records showed that the settlement of dues was winding up petitions, it appears that the secured creditors of KOFL were constrained to approach the DRT for recovery of their dues by filing O.A. Further, upon learning of the decision of the Company Judge dismissing the winding up petition, one of the secured IDBI BANK LTD. THR. DGM(LEGAL) Decision Date : 17-10-2019 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/33825/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
61	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 and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating NCLT and DRT as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals, respectively, for resolution of insolvency, liquidation Decision Date : 04-10-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5120/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
62	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK Vs D. VISALAKSHI AND ANR. – [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1772019 INSC 1067 Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI adverting to the statement of objects and reasons of the 2002 Act, opined that the secured creditor is not required to obtain a decree from a competent Court/ DRT before being entitled to take steps for the purpose of enforcement of recovery in relation to the secured THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK Decision Date : 23-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6295/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
63	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 Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ DRT ”). In Harshad Govardhan Case (supra) this Court held that the right of appeal is available to the tenant claiming under a borrower, however the right of re-possession does not exist with the tenant. However, in Kanaiyalal Sachdev and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 782, this Court held that the DRT can, not only set aside the action of the secured creditor, but even restore the status quo ante. We do not intend to express any view on this issue since it is not relevant for the disposal Decision Date : 11-09-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1371/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
64	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S KUT ENERGY PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, LARGE CORPORATE BRANCH, LUDHIANA & ORS. – [2019] 10 S.C.R. 7362019 INSC 928 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,VINEET SARAN satisfied on appropriation of sale proceeds of secured assets. The lead Bank has already filed suit for the recovery of Rs.129.47 crores, which is pending adjudication before the DRT . While the borrower/guarantors have a right to contest the bank’s claim before the DRT , it is highly decretal amount. However, in the event of dismissal of such suit, with a finding that the borrower or the guarantors are no longer under any liability, the amount so deposited by them can be refunded to them. Since all these issues are yet to be adjudicated by the DRT , we are of the view Decision Date : 20-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6016/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
65	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 redemption – Loan taken by appellants from respondent Bank – In view of default in discharging the loan by appellants, respondent Bank exercised its power under s.13(4) and took over constructive possession of mortgaged property – Appellant filed applications before DRT which, however, and closed both the loan accounts – On 6.1.2006, respondent bank issued a sale certificate in favour of respondent no.3 – Appellant filed applications for restoration of the main proceedings before DRT which was dismissed – Appellants thereafter forwarded demand drafts in the name of Decision Date : 20-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8097/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
66	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 9 S.C.R. 2892019 INSC 799 Judge : ARUN MISHRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT Various applications are being filed one after the other by the encumbered holders with respect to several properties that they have the charge over the said property. [Para 129] [570-A-E] 4.14 That apart, several attached properties have been put to sale by DRT under the orders of this Court. Decision Date : 23-07-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed not complying condition order | Direction Issue : Directions issued
67	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR. Vs AXIS BANK LTD. & ANR. – [2019] 8 S.C.R. 10582019 INSC 707 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,A.M. KHANWILKAR 2017, on the finding that there was no bar from entertaining civil suit(s) in respect of any other matter which is outside the scope of matters required to be determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “ DRT ”) constituted under 2002 Act. The learned Single Judge held that the facts the dictum in the concerned judgment on the principle underlying the exposition in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation7 to the effect that the DRT and also the appellate authority cannot pass a decree nor it is open to it to enter Decision Date : 01-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5126/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
68	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 pension – Interruption in service – Appellant working as law officer in respondent-bank (parent department) went on deputation to the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) – During the period of deputation, he applied for the post of Presiding Officer at DRT – Respondent- bank forwarded ‘No but bank sent no response to his letter – DRT released the appellant and then he took over charge as Presiding officer – After eleven months, respondent-bank asked the appellant to resign from the service of bank – After some communications, appellant tendered his resignation which was accepted Decision Date : 30-04-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4489/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
69	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 ( DRT Rohini and alleged clients in the open Court Hall of DRT I, II, III and that to the extent that the smooth functioning of the Tribunal has come to halt and justice delivery system has got obstructed. They have willingly and intentionally created this scenario in the open court with ulterior Officer of DRT I, Mumbai in this regard. We are apprehending that this kind of bad and turbulent situation may again take place and working of the Tribunals may be disturbed. Considering the dimension and seriousness of the situation we all felt that this situation may be adverted by Decision Date : 12-03-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/191/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
70	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CEMENT WORKERS’ MANDAL Vs GLOBAL CEMENTS LTD. (HMP CEMENTS LTD.) & ORS – [2019] 3 S.C.R. 3572019 INSC 197 Judge : DINESH MAHESHWARI,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE that Respondent No.2 – Indian Bank had given business loan to Respondent No.1- Company, which they failed to repay to the Indian Bank. The Indian Bank (R-2), therefore, filed a claim petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “the DRT ) at Calcutta against Respondent No.1-Company recovery of their unpaid loan amount with interest. 9. By order dated 04.03.2003, the DRT allowed the claim petition and ordered for sale of the properties of Respondent No.1-Company after giving due publicity. The DRT also appointed one Receiver to take appropriate steps in this regard. Decision Date : 14-02-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5360/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
71	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 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 [“ DRT creditor has obtained an order from the DRT , and a recovery certificate has been issued thereupon, such secured creditor cannot file a winding up petition as the Recovery of Debts Act is a special Act which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the DRT . Also, a secured creditor can file a winding before us. He first argued that this Court has held that the Recovery of Debts Act is a special statute qua the general statute of the Companies Act, 1956, and that this Court has further held that exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the DRT under the Recovery of Debts Act to the exclusion Decision Date : 29-01-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1291/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
72	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 13(4) have been taken so as to enable the borrower to approach DRT and in such an eventuality, the DRT shall have a jurisdiction to pass any order/interim order, may be subject to conditions, on the application under Section 17(1) of the Act. (f) The scheme of relevant provisions of the and the Rules shows that the Bank/FIs have been conferred with powers to take physical (actual) possession of the secured assets without interference of the Court and the only remedy open to the borrower is to approach DRT challenging such an action/measure and seeking appropriate Decision Date : 01-11-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10873/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
73	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 Lucknow Bench stays the release of petitioner, having regard to the enhanced age of retirement in the writ petition filed by him. 09.12.2016 The Bombay High Court dismissed WP(L) No. 3299/2016 filed by Vasant Narayan Lothey Patel, Presiding Officer, DRT III, Mumbai, whereby the said proceedings before the courts concerned. 14.11.2017 This Court allowed all six transfer petitions (TP(C) Nos. 1315-1320/2017) and also passed an interim order reinstating Mohd. Zafar Imam as Presiding Officer, DRT II, Mumbai. 26.12.2019 The petitioner will be completing the age of 65 Decision Date : 07-09-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/732/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
74	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIAN BANK & ANR. Vs K PAPPIREDDIYAR & ANR. – [2018] 6 S.C.R. 6112018 INSC 626 Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR agricultural in nature. The DRT rejected the objection of the debtor that the land was agricultural. In appeal, the DRAT reversed that finding. Apart from referring to the position in law, the impugned judgment of the High Court contains no discussion of the material which was relied upon by Tribunal ( DRT -III) at Chennai and renumbered as T.A. No. 93 of 2007. On 11 June 2010, DRT -III allowed the claim of the Bank in the amount of Rs. 31,00,238/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum. A recovery certificate was issued on 10 February 2011in the amount of Rs. 74,31,233.14/-. On Decision Date : 20-07-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6641/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
75	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 of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.34 – Equitable mortgage created by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the subject flat in favour of appellant-bank – Failure to repay the loan amount – Claim for title over the subject flat by respondent no.5 and 6 (writ petitioners) – DRT and of civil suit – For, no civil court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or DRAT is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction can be granted by any Court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be Decision Date : 17-05-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5248/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
76	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CANARA BANK Vs N. G. SUBBARAYA SETTY & ANR. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 8842018 INSC 385 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL son, stood as a guarantor for repayment of the said facility. As respondent No.1 defaulted in repayment of a sum of Rs.53,49,970.22, the petitioner bank filed O.A. No. 440 of 2002 before the DRT Bangalore, against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1, in order to repay the dues of the jurisdiction to entertain the suits, despite the pendency of DRT proceedings. The bank’s suit came to be dismissed. The ultimate order passed in the two suits is as follows: “O.S. 2832/2004 is hereby decreed in part, granting a relief in favour of the plaintiff as against the 1st Decision Date : 20-04-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4233/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
77	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer P. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM Vs P. VIJAYAKUMAR & ANR. – [2018] 6 S.C.R. 6672018 INSC 289 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,R. BANUMATHI Bank (later Federal Bank Ltd.) and the bank had initiated recovery proceedings, namely, O.S. No.40 of 1996 before 3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai which was later transferred to DRT , Coimbatore and renumbered as Transfer Application No.1441 of 2002. B. On 30.06.2000 the appellant entered into of 2002 was preferred by respondent No.1 to implead himself in the Transfer Application No.1441 of 2002 before DRT , Coimbatore. In his reply telegram dated 03.09.2002 appellant denied all the assertions made by the advocate for respondent No.1 and cancelled the agreement dated 20.09.2000. Decision Date : 28-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3353/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
78	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ANILKUMAR JINABHAI PATEL (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. Vs PRAVINCHANDRA JINABHAI PATEL AND ORS. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 7182018 INSC 273 Judge : R. BANUMATHI,R.K. AGRAWAL against Pravinchandra Patel, M/s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited and others. In the said proceeding before DRT , Anilkumar Patel has referred to the arbitration award passed in July, 1996 and that he has no interest in M/s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Limited. Based on such stand taken by Anilkumar Patel in O.A.No.298-A/2001, DRT observed that Anilkumar Patel had resigned from the Directorship of the said company and exonerated him from the liability to the bank and dismissed O.A.No.298-A/2001 against Anilkumar Patel and Decision Date : 27-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3313/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
79	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 which came to be postponed in view of the negotiations between the parties for the repayment of the dues. Upon default in the repayment of the outstanding amount, a second sale notice was published on 09.01.2014 with the same reserve price. The DRT passed an interim order,8 directing the Decision Date : 19-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2928/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
80	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 sale or transfer that the secured asset is not to be sold or transferred. The appellant was aware of the proceedings initiated by the bank for asserting its right to recover its dues by selling the property. The appellant moved the DRT in Securitization Application. During the pendency of deposit the amount of Rs 2,00,000 as against the dues of Rs.36 lakhs. This was not acceptable. The proceedings before the DRT were listed on 1 February 2016 during the course of which the appellant stated that he would move a redemption application within three days. The Decision Date : 06-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/148/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
81	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 On analysing the above provisions of the DRT Act, we find that the said Act is a complete code by itself as far as recovery of debt is concerned. It provides for various modes of recovery. It incorporates even the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, Therefore, the debt due under the recovery certificate can be recovered in various ways. The remedies mentioned therein are complementary to each other. The DRT Act provides for adjudication. It provides for adjudication of disputes as far as the debt due is concerned. It covers secured as well Decision Date : 23-02-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/18/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
82	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 DRT shall not be affected. In respect of the DRAT also, the selection process has been completed and will hence be taken to its logical conclusion. CAT 9. In respect of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the chart submitted by the learned Attorney General indicates that after Decision Date : 22-02-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/279/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
83	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 realise long term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’) with passage of time, had become synonymous those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspects have not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order. 10. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was held in Punjab National Bank Decision Date : 30-01-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1281/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
84	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF INDIA Vs YADAV CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD. AND ANR. – [2017] 12 S.C.R. 672017 INSC 1176 Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R. BANUMATHI after pursuing the matter before DRT , DRAT and High Court, sought arbitration before Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Facilitation (MSMEDF) Council – Award passed by MSMEDF Council directing the Bank to pay Rs.J,62,82,0791- with interest @ 24% to first respondent – Upheld F by the charges for security 0 sen1ices to the first respondent – Bank was under no obligation to pay the charges to the first respondent in any case after 24.07.2008(order of DRT ) – High Court was not right in saying that DRT had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and, thus, the order Decision Date : 05-12-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5150/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
85	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 Act, 2002 – ss.17 and 13 (4) – C Auction purchaser challimging the action of the secured creditor in foifeiting the deposit -Appropriate remedy- Filing q( an application uls.17 before the DRT or writ petition u!Art.2261227 – Held: Reading of s.17(2) and r. 9(5) clear(v show that an action within the expression “any person” as specified u!s. 17(1) and thus, enritled 10 challenge the action of the secured creditor before the DRT by jl/ing an applicalion uls.17(1) – Security Interest E F G H (Enforcement} Rules, 2002 – rt: 8 and 9 – Constitution of India – Art. Decision Date : 27-11-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/19847/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
86	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M. D. FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs HERO FINCORP LTD. – [2017] 13 S.C.R. 8002017 INSC 976 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL not apply. In the present case, as stated above. the NPA Act is an additional remedy to the DRT Act. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Even according to Snell s Principles of Equity (31st Edn., p. 119), the doctrine of election Decision Date : 21-09-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/15147/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
87	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRlES LTD. Vs ICICI BANK & ANR. – [2017] 8 S.C.R. 332017 INSC 837 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL multiple fora such as Board oflndustrial and Financial Reconstruction (BlFR), Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is F handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and insolvency is dealt economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating the NCLT and DRT as the Adjudicating Authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals, respectively, for resolution of insolvency, liquidation and bankruptcy. The Code separates commercial aspects Decision Date : 31-08-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8337/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
88	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS. – [2017] 3 S.C.R. 4872017 INSC 462 Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,UDAY UMESH LALIT Tribunal ( DRT ) – Seeking recovery of thousands of crores of rupees – Filed by consortium of Banks – Against the Respondents debtors/Guarantors – Respondent Nos. JO and 11 had disclosed that respondent No. 3 (Guarantor) would be paid a sum of US$ 75 million by responde11t No. JO and D out of said amount, a sum of US $ 40 million would be paid to the Banks immediately (The amount of US$ 40 million was received by respondent No. 3 on 25. 02. 2016) – The Banks moved interlocutory applications before DRT (1) to freeze passport of respondent No. 3 (2) to issue arrest warrant against Decision Date : 09-05-2017 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/6828/2016 | Disposal Nature : Hearing Adjourned
89	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. – [2017] 4 S.C.R. 7902017 INSC 1288 Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,ARUN MISHRA entered into, the property was unencumbered and was not under mortgage with HUDCO. Thus agreement with regard to 21 acres was not interdicted by interim order of DRT . Thus SGS Constructions by making a huge payment of Rs.9 crores had acquired a right over the said unencumbered property. Thus Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ” DRT “). Maharaji Educational Trust (hereinafter referred to as “the Educational Trust”) had taken a loan of approximately Rs. 75 crores from Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (for short B ‘HUDCO’) and mortgaged properties Nos. l to 6. The Trust Decision Date : 08-05-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6463/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
90	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 C Company borrowed a sum of Rs. 900 lakhs from consortium of Banks led by State Bank of Travancore (SBT) – Non-payment of loan by respondent – Recovery proceedings by SBT before DRT , partially decreed – However, SBT assigned the debt due from respondent to Kotak Mahindra 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
91	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 Tribunal ( DRT ), Bangalore. A B c D E F G H 454 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. 38. The High Court, while granting the leave to the State Bank of Mysore passed an order that no coercive steps are to be taken against the assets of the company or after the G conclusion of proceedings before DRT , Bangalore. H 40. It appears that in the recovery proceedings, the assets were auctioned and Anita Internationals were the auction purchaser. The issue was raised before the High Court that in view of the order of Madras High Court dated Decision Date : 07-12-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11886/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
92	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UCO BANK AND ANR. Vs DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS. – [2016] 11 S.C.R. 7232016 INSC 1064 Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE and Financial Institutions, Act 1993 (for short the ” DRT Act”) and also the Act of 2002 must be understood by noticing the absence ofany specific provision in either of 0 the Central enactments containing a similar/parallel provision of a first charge in favour of the bank. The judgment of Decision Date : 25-11-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11247/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
93	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 34 – Suit against proceedings initiated uls. 13(4) – lnvolving debt less C than Rs. 10 lakhs – Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of bar u!s. 34 or is it maintainable in view of s. 1 (4) of DRT Act which debars the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of debts below Rs. JO – Held: The jurisdiction of civil court is barred in respect of action taken under the SARFAESl Act and the remedy available is before the Tribunal under DRT Act – As per s. I (4) of DRT Act, D provisions of DRT Act would not apply where the amount of debt is less than Rs. JO /akhs – But Decision Date : 08-11-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/210/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
94	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 application filed by the Bank, the prayer made was, thaf the Bank be permitted leave to proceed with recovery proceedings before the DRT . By the order dated 10.3.2000, the Company Court in the High Court at Madras, while granting leave, imposed two conditions. Firstly, the Official Liquidator have to be impleaded by the bank in the recovery proceedings before the DRT . And secondly, no coercive steps would be taken against the assets of the company during or after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribu1.ial. It cannot be said that the aforesaid order passed by the Decision Date : 04-07-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6042/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
95	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 Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Any person aggrieved by the order of the DRT under Section 17 of the F SARFAESI Act, is entitled to prefer an appeal along with the prescribed fee within the permitted period of 30 days. For ‘preferring’ an appeal, a fee is whereas for the Tribunal to ‘entertain’ the appeal, the aggrieved person has to make a deposit of fifty 11er cent of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the G DRT , whichever is less. This amount can, at the discretion of the Tribunal, Decision Date : 22-04-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4379/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
96	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 the SICA o;verrides the provisions of the DRT Act – Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( DRT Act) – ss. 17, 18 and 34. ‘ 419 A • B c D E F G H 420 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 11 S.C.R. Sick the Delhi High Court B stayed both the orders, which stay continued until 24.7.2008, when, by the impugtied judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 5. Meanwhile, the sale notice of8.8.2003. was challenged before the DRT by the appellants. The said challenge was unsuccessful, as a C Decision Date : 29-01-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/614/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
97	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 extend to the laws operating in the same field. Interpreting the non obstante clause of the SARFAESI Act, a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Central Ba11k 1if India v. State of Kera/a & Ors.'” has held as under: “18. The DRT Act and Securitisation Act were enacted by Parliament securitisation and ‘” 12009) 4 sec 94 VISHAL N. KALSARIA v. BANK OF !NOIA & ORS. 443 [Y. GOPALA GOWDA, .1.) empowering the banks etc. to take possession of the securities A and sell them without inte1’vention of the Court. xxx xxx xxx 110. The DRT Act facilitated establishment of Decision Date : 20-01-2016 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/52/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
98	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 against Megnostarwas allowed by DRT -11, Delhi on 13.07.2010 holding the company liable to pay to the bank Rs.12.95 crores approx. with pendente lite and future interest @ 15.5. % p.a. with quarterly interests from date of filing of O.A. till date of C realization. To realize its dues, Decision Date : 29-12-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3646/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
99	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs C. L. VIMLA & ORS. – [2015] 5 S.C.R. 2002015 INSC 363 Judge : PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,JASTI CHELAMESWAR further orders. In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser filed the applications H 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A seeking vacation of the Interim orders. On 22.01.2007, the interim order was vacated by the DRT in the absence of the appellant. Thus, the guarantor continued possession till 31.1.2007. The auction purchaser moved an application on 01.02.2007 for recalling the order dated 22.01.2007: On B 5.02.2007, the High Court LokAdalatpermitted the appellant to request the DRT to defer the proceedings. An application made in this regard was dismissed on Decision Date : 28-04-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4043/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
100	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. & ORS. – [2014] 14 S.C.R. 10972014 INSC 738 Judge : H.L. DATTU,S.A. BOBDE,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE served. On 15.07.03, an ex-parte final order in favour of IDBI for recovery of above mentioned sum C i.e. Rs. 25,26,60,836/- along with interest@ 7.8% p.a. was passed by DRT . ORT expressly directed that in the event of failure on the part of the Company to pay the decretal amount, IDBI will the properties of the company but creditors may continue to apply for recovery before the DRT . We do not think that such an ,anomalous purpose can be attributed to Parliament in the present legislative scheme. E Though there is no doubt that Parliament may expressly bring about such a Decision Date : 27-10-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5225/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed