Debt Recovery Tribunal

Supreme Court Restricts High Court Interference in SARFAESI Act Cases: South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjiv Khanna, SARFAESI Act, 2002, Section 13(2), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 13(4), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Writ Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Restricts High Court Interference in SARFAESI Act Cases: South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether High Courts can interfere in matters related to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) when an effective alternative remedy is available. CASE TYPE: […]

Supreme Court Restricts High Court Interference in SARFAESI Act Cases: South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes High Court order in auction dispute: SRS Advertising vs. Kamal Garg (2022)

/ B. V. Nagarathna, Debt Recovery, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Judges, Jurisdiction, M. R. Shah, Writ Jurisdiction

Supreme Court quashes High Court order in auction dispute: SRS Advertising vs. Kamal Garg (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting final relief in a matter where an interim relief was sought, while the main appeal was pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). CASE TYPE: Debt Recovery/Auction Dispute

Supreme Court quashes High Court order in auction dispute: SRS Advertising vs. Kamal Garg (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Deposit and Resolves Dispute in Debt Recovery Case

/ A.S. Bopanna, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Judges, M.R. Shah, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 25

Supreme Court Directs Deposit and Resolves Dispute in Debt Recovery Case LEGAL ISSUE: Dispute over the amount due and payable in a debt recovery case. CASE TYPE: Debt Recovery Case Name: XLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS [Judgment Date]: 27 October 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Directs Deposit and Resolves Dispute in Debt Recovery Case Read Post »

Supreme Court Prioritizes Secured Creditor Rights Over Tax Dues in Property Dispute: Connectwell Industries vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Debt Recovery, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Deepak Gupta, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Rule 16, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Rule 2, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Prioritizes Secured Creditor Rights Over Tax Dues in Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior secured debt takes precedence over government tax dues when a property is sold by a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). CASE TYPE: Debt Recovery/Tax Law Case Name: M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India Judgment Date: March

Supreme Court Prioritizes Secured Creditor Rights Over Tax Dues in Property Dispute: Connectwell Industries vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds DRT Decree, Dismisses Civil Suits Challenging it: Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal (2020)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 with Section 18, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 with Section 20, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds DRT Decree, Dismisses Civil Suits Challenging it: Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to challenge orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). CASE TYPE: Debt Recovery/Civil. Case Name: Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal and others. Judgment Date: 28 February 2020 Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2020

Supreme Court Upholds DRT Decree, Dismisses Civil Suits Challenging it: Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against DRT Order in Securitisation Act Case: M/S. Neel Enterprises vs. State Bank of India (2018)

/ Condonation of Delay, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against DRT Order in Securitisation Act Case: M/S. Neel Enterprises vs. State Bank of India (2018) Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2018 Citation: M/S. Neel Enterprises & Anr. vs. State Bank of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4989 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7085/2016) Judges: Kurian Joseph,

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against DRT Order in Securitisation Act Case: M/S. Neel Enterprises vs. State Bank of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in MSMED Act and DRT cases: Bank of India wins against Yadav Consultancy (05 December 2017)

/ Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Facilitation Council, R. Banumathi, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 with Section 31-A

This judgment addresses a dispute over payment of security service charges. The core legal issue is whether the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 can be invoked when proceedings are ongoing before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Supreme Court of India settled this dispute, clarifying the jurisdiction of both bodies. This

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in MSMED Act and DRT cases: Bank of India wins against Yadav Consultancy (05 December 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Limitation Act applicability on appeals under Section 30 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act: International Asset Reconstruction Company vs. The Official Liquidator (24 October 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 24, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 30

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 942 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can the delay in filing an appeal against a Recovery Officer’s order under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 be condoned by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? This

Supreme Court settles Limitation Act applicability on appeals under Section 30 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act: International Asset Reconstruction Company vs. The Official Liquidator (24 October 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top