DRT May Entertain Plea Against Measures To Recover Secured Debts Beyond Limitation If Satisfied With The Reasons: Gauhati High Court
3 months, 3 weeks ago

DRT May Entertain Plea Against Measures To Recover Secured Debts Beyond Limitation If Satisfied With The Reasons: Gauhati High Court

Live Law  

The Gauhati High Court has recently held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has to dispose of an application under SARFAESI Act made against measures to recover secured debts by any person in accordance with Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act which applies the provisions of the Limitation Act to tribunal proceedings.For context, Section 24 of the RDB Act states that. The Gauhati High Court has recently held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has to dispose of an application under SARFAESI Act made against measures to recover secured debts by any person in accordance with Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act which applies the provisions of the Limitation Act to tribunal proceedings. In doing so the court, applied the "principle of legislation by incorporation" by observing that as the provisions of RDB Act are incorporated into the SARFAESI Act, therefore DRT can entertain a plea to recover secured debts beyond the limitation period, if it is satisfied that sufficient reasons were provided for not filing the plea within time. while taking into consideration the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as well as the RDB Act has, in unequivocal terms, which held that the DRT as well as the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal have the power to condone the delay by applying the provisions of the Limitation Act while adjudicating the application moved under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, or an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

Application Limitation Act Limitation Tribunal High Act Measures Debts Provisions Section 17 Section 24 Recover Secured Sarfaesi Act Gauhati High Court Drt Section 13 Sarfaesi Rdb Secured Debts Rdb Act Debts Recovery Tribunal  reasons  recover  measures  plea  high  rdb  17  limitation  entertain  drt  act  tribunal  application  provisions  gauhati  satisfied  sarfaesi  debts  secured

History of this topic

Courts Have No Power To Extend Prescribed Period Of Limitation On Grounds Of Equity And Justice: Karnataka High Court
3 weeks, 2 days ago

Courts Have No Power To Extend Prescribed Period Of Limitation On Grounds Of Equity And Justice: Karnataka High Court

Live Law  

The Karnataka High Court has said that Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party; but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Kailasam P challenging the order of the Debt …

[LARR Act, 2013] Court Cannot Condone Delay Beyond 120-Day Period In Appeal Against Award Of Compensation: Bombay High Court
2 months, 1 week ago

[LARR Act, 2013] Court Cannot Condone Delay Beyond 120-Day Period In Appeal Against Award Of Compensation: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has observed that a delay in filing an appeal against the award of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 cannot be condoned by the court beyond a period of 120 days as provided under Section 74 of the Act. The Court stated that as Section …

Plea Of Limitation Shall Be Deemed To Be Waived If Not Raised Before Arbitrator U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
4 months, 1 week ago

Plea Of Limitation Shall Be Deemed To Be Waived If Not Raised Before Arbitrator U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Live Law  

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that plea of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act if no such plea was taken before the Arbitrator under section 16 of the Act. Brief Facts This arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 …

DRT issues summons to Wadhawans for recovery of ₹846.63-crore bank loan
7 months ago

DRT issues summons to Wadhawans for recovery of ₹846.63-crore bank loan

Hindustan Times  

MUMBAI: The Debt Recovery Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that helps banks and financial institutions recover loans from customers, has issued a public summons to Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd promoters Rakeshkumar Wadhawan and his son Sarang, in connection with the proceedings initiated by Bank of India for recovery of an outstanding loan amount of ₹846.63 crore from their group firm, …

Local Debt Recovery Tribunal Must Be Established In Jammu And Kashmir, Says Supreme Court
7 months, 2 weeks ago

Local Debt Recovery Tribunal Must Be Established In Jammu And Kashmir, Says Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court on Friday called for the establishment of local Debt Recovery Tribunals in Jammu and Kashmir. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a plea by a bank against the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's decision allowing challenges to actions under the SARFAESI Act to be made before the High …

S.17 (1A) SARFAESI Act | Jurisdiction Of DRTs Can't Be Solely Decided Based On Location Of Asset: Allahabad High Court Clarifies
11 months ago

S.17 (1A) SARFAESI Act | Jurisdiction Of DRTs Can't Be Solely Decided Based On Location Of Asset: Allahabad High Court Clarifies

Live Law  

The Allahabad High Court has held that jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to entertain application under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be based solely on the location of the secured asset. The Court held that the insertion of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act has an overriding …

Is 90-Day Limitation For Appeal Under Sec.21(5) NIA Act Directory Or Mandatory? Supreme Court To Settle Conflicting Views Of HCs
11 months, 1 week ago

Is 90-Day Limitation For Appeal Under Sec.21(5) NIA Act Directory Or Mandatory? Supreme Court To Settle Conflicting Views Of HCs

Live Law  

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide the issue whether the upper limit of 90 days prescribed under Section 21 National Investigation Agency Act to file appeal against an order of the trial court is directory or mandatory.The Court noted that there are conflicting opinions rendered by the High Courts on this point.The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud …

Extension Of Limitation Period Under Section 168A Of GST Act; Punjab And Haryana High Court Issues Notice
1 year, 1 month ago

Extension Of Limitation Period Under Section 168A Of GST Act; Punjab And Haryana High Court Issues Notice

Live Law  

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the government in a plea challenging the extension of the limitation period under Section 168A of the GST Act.The bench of Justice G.S. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the government in a plea challenging the extension of the limitation period under Section 168A …

Limitation Act Applies To Commercial Disputes But Delay Can Be Condoned Only In Exceptional Cases: Kerala High Court
1 year, 5 months ago

Limitation Act Applies To Commercial Disputes But Delay Can Be Condoned Only In Exceptional Cases: Kerala High Court

Live Law  

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday condoned a delay of 25 days in filing an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, on the ground that such delay had not resulted in any loss on the part of the opposite party. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Sophy Thomas though took note of the intent of …

S.17 SARFAESI Act | Recovery Action May Have Disastrous Consequences For Borrower, DRT Must Pass Interim Order Upon Application Of Mind: Kerala HC
1 year, 9 months ago

S.17 SARFAESI Act | Recovery Action May Have Disastrous Consequences For Borrower, DRT Must Pass Interim Order Upon Application Of Mind: Kerala HC

Live Law  

The Kerala High Court recently held that interim orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be issued mechanically and without application of mind. On Maintainability The Court held that in cases where the Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly, requiring …

Union Govt’s Duty To Ensure Fully Functional DRTs On Unhindered Basis, Non-Availability Renders Litigants Remediless: Delhi High Court
1 year, 11 months ago

Union Govt’s Duty To Ensure Fully Functional DRTs On Unhindered Basis, Non-Availability Renders Litigants Remediless: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is the duty of the Union Ministry of Finance to ensure that the Debt Recovery Tribunals in the national capital are fully functional on an unhindered basis as their non-availability renders litigants remediless. A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that pro-active measures are expected in …

Practical Solution Needed At Earliest To Address Issue Of Frequent Vacancy In DRTs: Delhi High Court
1 year, 11 months ago

Practical Solution Needed At Earliest To Address Issue Of Frequent Vacancy In DRTs: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has taken note of the issue of “frequent vacancy” arising in the national capital's Debt Recovery Tribunals, observing that the issue needs consideration and a practical solution has to be found at the earliest.A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain noted that out of the three DRTs in Delhi, only two …

Applicability Of Limitation Act Barred When Special Act Provides For Limitation Period Along With Its Extension: MP High Court Reiterates
2 years, 3 months ago

Applicability Of Limitation Act Barred When Special Act Provides For Limitation Period Along With Its Extension: MP High Court Reiterates

Live Law  

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently reiterated that applicability of the Limitation Act would be barred in cases governed by a special Act which provides for the provision of limitation period and its extension. Justice Subodh Abhyankar added that even if the provisions of the Limitation Act are not specifically excluded, its operation would be barred when the …

Challenge Under Section 17 Of The SARFAESI Act Against Action Taken By Secured Creditor, Would Not Bar Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court
2 years, 3 months ago

Challenge Under Section 17 Of The SARFAESI Act Against Action Taken By Secured Creditor, Would Not Bar Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 can go hand in hand. The single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that even if a party intended to take action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing a petition …

Supreme Court Requests High Courts To Entertain SARFAESI, Bank Recovery Matters Under Writ Jurisdiction In View Of DRT/DRAT Vacancies
3 years, 3 months ago

Supreme Court Requests High Courts To Entertain SARFAESI, Bank Recovery Matters Under Writ Jurisdiction In View Of DRT/DRAT Vacancies

Live Law  

Taking note of the lack of operation of the Debts Recovery Tribunals and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals in many states due to non-filling of vacancies, the Supreme Court on Thursday passed an order requesting the High Courts to entertain applications under the SARFAESI under the writ jurisdiction as an interim measure. "To resolve the problem for the time being, …

Can DRT Condone Delay In Filing Application Under Section 17 SARFAESI Act? Supreme Court To Examine
3 years, 11 months ago

Can DRT Condone Delay In Filing Application Under Section 17 SARFAESI Act? Supreme Court To Examine

Live Law  

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a special leave petition which raises the issue whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing an application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Reinforcement of Security Interest Act 2002.The petition was filed against a judgment of the Kerala High Court …

Disputes Which Are To Be Adjudicated By DRTs Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Overrules 2012 Delhi HC Judgment
4 years, 3 months ago

Disputes Which Are To Be Adjudicated By DRTs Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Overrules 2012 Delhi HC Judgment

Live Law  

Overruling a Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court has observed that the disputes which are to be adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the DRT Act are non-arbitrable.To hold that the claims of banks and financial institutions covered under the DRT Act are arbitrable would deprive and deny these institutions of the specific rights including …

Suits With Basic Relief Of Challenging Decree Passed By DRT Not Maintainable: SC [Read Judgment]
5 years ago

Suits With Basic Relief Of Challenging Decree Passed By DRT Not Maintainable: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court has observed that the suits with the basic relief of challenging the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal are not maintainable. The Bank filed applications to reject the plaints in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that considering the provisions of Recovery of Debts due …

DRT Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Review Application Under RDB Act : SC [Read Judgment]
5 years, 1 month ago

DRT Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Review Application Under RDB Act : SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court has held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing application for review under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993The Court held that the provisions of Limitation Act, including the provision to condone delay under Section 5 of it, apply only to original applications filed under Section 19 of …

DRT Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]
7 years, 4 months ago

DRT Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court, in International Asset Reconstruction Company Of India Ltd vs The Official Liquidator Of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Others, has held that the prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, for preferring an appeal against the order of the recovery officer cannot be condoned by application of Section …

DRT Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]
7 years, 4 months ago

DRT Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court, in International Asset Reconstruction Company Of India Ltd vs The Official Liquidator Of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Others, has held that the prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, for preferring an appeal against the order of the recovery officer cannot be condoned by application of Section …

Appeal Before DRT Maintainable Even If Amount Involved Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakh: SC [Read Judgment]
8 years, 4 months ago

Appeal Before DRT Maintainable Even If Amount Involved Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakh: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Mukesh Jain, has held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as per Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, even if the amount involved is less than Rs 10 lakh.A bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave …

Appeal Before DRT Maintainable Even If Amount Involved Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakh: SC [Read Judgment]
8 years, 4 months ago

Appeal Before DRT Maintainable Even If Amount Involved Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakh: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Mukesh Jain, has held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as per Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, even if the amount involved is less than Rs 10 lakh.A bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave …

Partial deposit before DRAT under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act refundable, reiterates SC [Read Judgment]
8 years, 6 months ago

Partial deposit before DRAT under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act refundable, reiterates SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

Reiterating the dictum laid down in in Axis bank vs. SBS Organics Private Limited, the Supreme Court in KUMAR ALUMINIUM LTD. VS. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA has set aside a Delhi High Court Judgment which had refused to interfere with DRAT order which turned down the prayer for refund of the amount deposited in compliance of the requirement of the …

Situs of the Mortgaged Property is not determinative of the Territorial Jurisdiction of the DRT: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]
9 years, 3 months ago

Situs of the Mortgaged Property is not determinative of the Territorial Jurisdiction of the DRT: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

We hold that the DRT whilst deciding whether it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Securitisation Application filed under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would be guided by the principles enshrined in section 19 of the RDDB Act and not by section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court said. Bombay High Court has held that …

Situs of the Mortgaged Property is not determinative of the Territorial Jurisdiction of the DRT: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]
9 years, 3 months ago

Situs of the Mortgaged Property is not determinative of the Territorial Jurisdiction of the DRT: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

We hold that the DRT whilst deciding whether it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Securitisation Application filed under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would be guided by the principles enshrined in section 19 of the RDDB Act and not by section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court said. Bombay High Court has held that …

Provisions of SICA prevail over the provision for recovery of debts under RDDB Act : Supreme Court [Read the Judgment]
10 years, 4 months ago

Provisions of SICA prevail over the provision for recovery of debts under RDDB Act : Supreme Court [Read the Judgment]

Live Law  

A three judge benchof the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India HL Dattu, Justice Bobde and Justice Sapre pronounced that "the provisions of SICA, in particular Section 22, shall prevail over the provision for the recovery of debts in the RDDB Act. A three judge benchof the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India HL Dattu, Justice …

Discover Related