Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Delhi High Court Upholds Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal for SARFAESI Act Claims Below ₹10 Lakh

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has affirmed the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for claims made under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, even when the amount involved is below ₹10 lakh. This verdict clarifies a crucial legal issue and ensures that individuals and firms have access to the DRT as a forum for redressal in cases of SARFAESI Act actions.

Delhi High Court’s decision came in a case where a borrower had challenged the jurisdiction of the DRT to entertain an application filed by a bank under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act, despite the debt being less than ₹10 lakh. The Court ruled that the DRT has appellate jurisdiction when actions initiated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act are contested before it. It noted that the legislative intent was to provide a remedy for debtors facing SARFAESI Act proceedings, even for claims below the specified limit.

The Court further emphasized that the SARFAESI Act should not be interpreted in isolation from the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act). It highlighted that the RDB Act's provisions, including those related to set-offs and counterclaims, are essential to the overall scheme of adjudication and recovery of debts. The SARFAESI Act lacks such provisions.

The ruling has important implications for borrowers and secured creditors, as it ensures that individuals and firms can seek redressal through the DRT for SARFAESI Act actions, irrespective of the debt amount involved. It also underscores the importance of providing debtors with a remedy when faced with actions for the enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI Act.

This decision aligns with the principle of ensuring access to justice and protecting the rights of individuals and entities in financial matters, particularly in cases involving secured creditors and outstanding debts below ₹10 lakh.

Date of Decision: 01 November 2023

IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED  VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.     

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/01-Nov-2023-IDFC_First_Bank-Vs-UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News