Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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