DRAT Judgments, Supreme Court of India

Important Judgments: DRAT Judgments, Supreme Court of India

Judge : VIKRAM NATH,SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
aside sale and directed Bank to refund auction money with interest as applicable to fixed deposit only after receiving the possession of the premises – DRT found no proof of improvements/investments – DRAT and High Court confirmed. Held: Supreme Court upheld the setting aside of the auction 2 DRAT 3 SARFAESI Act 4 2002 Rules 636 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports purchaser has not place on record any material to prove the alleged improvements in the property. The auction purchaser is enjoying this property since 2009 as such auction purchaser is not
Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/24155/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA,MANOJ MISRA
to remit the balance amount. It further observed that as the Secured Asset had been sold for an amount higher than the initial bid, no loss was caused to the appellant. 17. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“ DRAT ”) by way RA(SA) No. 119 of 2019. The DRAT vide its order dated 30.07.2021 observed that the secured creditor was not entitled to forfeit the entire amount deposited, but partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the forfeiture from Rs. 5 Lac to Rs. 55 Lac. B. IMPUGNED ORDER 18. Aggrieved with
Decision Date : 02-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/235/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,BELA M. TRIVEDI
Petition being (ST No.29319 of 2019). The Bombay High Court vide the order dated 25.11.2019 relegated the Respondent no.1 to the statutory remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ DRAT ’). It was observed in the said order by the High Court that: petitioner has an effi cacious alternate remedy of appeal before the learned DRAT , where no pre-deposit is required.” (vii) Pending the said Writ Petition before the High Court, the auction having taken place, the Respondent no.6 M/s. Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd. (the Applicant herein) claimed to be
Decision Date : 04-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1902/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : M.A. dismissed.

Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH
DRAT can be directed to be considered by other Tribunals like Central Administrative Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal within the State. With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stop-gap arrangement, we request
Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

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 for counter-affidavits, the case was posted to 28th November, 2017. d. The order of status quo passed by the DRT was challenged by the Authorized Officer in an appeal carried before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for brevity “the DRAT ”, hereafter). On 12th December, 2017,
Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2545/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,J.B. PARDIWALA
Mr Shyam Gopal has adverted to a notice dated 22 February 2023 issued by the DRTs for Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Ernakulam and by the DRAT at Delhi indicating the arrangements which have been made for setting up help desks or, as the case may be, providing technical assistance. 18.
Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/155/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,M.M. SUNDRESH
(since deceased) dragged them inside the house and assaulted them with iron rods (Sariya), sickle ( DRAT ) and sticks. They were provided water which was undrinkable/tasteless. Further, accused-Sant Kumar stole Rs 300 from the deceased’s pocket. iii. The prosecution’s case, in a nutshell, Kumar states in his evidence that after some time, when his brothers Manjit and Jaswinder were going in the lane abutting the house of accused persons, the accused persons assaulted them with DRAT and Iron rod. According to him, when they, on account of injuries, became unconscious, the
Decision Date : 12-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1863/2010 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : M.R. SHAH,M.M. SUNDRESH
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. order passed by the DRT-I. Against the judgment and order passed by the DRT-I dismissing the application, the borrower had a statutory remedy available by way of appeal before the DRAT . If the borrower would have preferred an appeal before the DRAT , he would have been required to deposit 25%
Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7402/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
by auction sale of the secured properties/deposited by the auction purchasers while considering the 50% of the amount as pre-deposit to be deposited by the borrower, while preferring an appeal before the DRAT . Even the High Court of Delhi has erred in excluding the amount the said writ petitions preferred by the original writ petitioners – auction purchasers and has confirmed the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (for short, ‘ DRAT ’), by which the DRAT while entertaining the appeals under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act held that
Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8969/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,VIKRAM NATH
for which set off was allowed in the proceedings. 8. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, proceeded to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRAT ’) with M.A. No.31 of 2003, which was dismissed vide an order dated
Decision Date : 10-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8972/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
in compliance thereof, deposited the amount, and the application was allowed by the Recovery Officer as also by DRAT which had set aside the sale in favour of the auction purchasers – However, the High Court while dismissing the application by the judgment debtor u/r. 60 holding that as was a shortfall in the deposit of the amount while exercising the right u/r. 60, quashed and set aside the order passed by the DRAT and the Recovery Officer – High Court did not at all appreciate and consider the fact that for the inaccuracy and/or mistake on the part of the Recovery
Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3469/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
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 – Application to seek interim relief from the DRAT was renotified after the date of the proposed auction – Apprehending the interim relief application to become infructuous, respondent no.1 filed writ petition before High Court – Writ petition disposed of by High Court, further opportunity granted
Decision Date : 16-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1302/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA
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

Judge : M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA
the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, preferred against the order passed by the Recovery Officer are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. The order passed by the DRAT setting aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is restored. [Para has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – Bank and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “ DRAT ”) by which the learned DRAT quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery
Decision Date : 24-11-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6898/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – s.25 – Appeal arising out of impugned judgment passed by High Court by which the High Court dismissed writ petition preferred by appellants confirming the order passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ), Delhi passed in Appeal No.82/2020 – DRAT , disposed of said appeal preferred by respondents maintaining the order of attachment of share held by appellant no.1 during pendency of Appeal No.1/2020 – However, DRAT also directed and observed that in the meanwhile recovery proceedings will go on before the Recovery Officer who will try
Decision Date : 27-10-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6518/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,B.V. NAGARATHNA
to the Respondent No. 3 along with 10% Interest – On appeal, DRAT , set aside the order of DRT, except in respect of payment of excess amount to third respondent – High Court upheld the order of the DRAT – Held: Sale scheduled on 27.02.2012 in pursuance of First Sale Notice could not take proceedings of the First Sale Notice, therefore providing of 30 days’ clear notice is not necessary – Order of the DRT was not sustainable insofar as setting aside the sale – DRAT has rightly reversed the same which was upheld by the High Court – Auction purchaser was the successful bidder and the
Decision Date : 23-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5920/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : N.V. RAMANA,SURYA KANT,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Singh and Sodha also gave blows of DRAT and axe to my father. As a result of the beatings my father became unconscious and fell down. Hem Singh and Jai Singh accused gave me danda blows”. It was also mentioned that the accused had broken the door, windows and utensils. He then described how gave DRAT blow on the leg of my father-in-law Beli Ram…Jai Singh and Hem Singh gave danda blow to my husband Netar Singh.” She stated that her husband escaped to the roof, reported the matter to the Pradhan and came back with the police the next day. Her husband and father-in-law were taken
Decision Date : 07-05-2021 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1140/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : S.A. BOBDE,A.S. BOPANNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
MAHINDRA BANK PVT. LIMITED v. AMBUJ A. KASLIWAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 538 of 2021) FEBRUARY 16, 2021 [S. A. BOBDE, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – s.21 – Appeal before DRAT – Pre-deposit the debt due – Waiver – Sustainability of – Held: In all cases fifty per cent of the decretal amount i.e. the debt due is to be deposited before DRAT as a mandatory requirement, but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded the deposit of at least twenty-five per cent of the debt due
Decision Date : 16-02-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/538/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI
valid mortgage as the same was created by incompetent persons and the said issue was still to be examined by DRT in O.A. No. 11/2008 – However, the DRAT reversed the decision of DRT and directed return of original documents – Aggrieved, guarantor filed writ petition before the High Court 11, despite the issuance of sale certificate, the title document in respect of old Paimash No. 722/4 ought not to be released until the final decision in O.A.No. 11/2008 is made by DRT – Therefore, the operative order of the DRAT is modified to the effect that application filed by the bank
Decision Date : 24-04-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2373/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : R. BANUMATHI,S. ABDUL NAZEER,A.S. BOPANNA
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 appeal before DRAT were dismissed, the remedy ought to have been availed diligently – In that direction the further remedy by approaching the High Court to assail the order of DRT & DRAT is also available in appropriate cases – Instead, after dismissal of application before DRT, the
Decision Date : 03-03-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/377/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,INDIRA BANERJEE,M.R. SHAH
provided to DRAT against the order of DRT and therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits – The respondents-plaintiffs opposed the applications stating that they have purchased the suit property from the original owner and that they are in possession and enjoyment appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In the case of O.C. Krishnan and others, this Court has observed and held that in view of the alternate remedy of preferring the appeal before the DRAT , the petition under Article
Decision Date : 28-02-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1863/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

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 An appeal was filed by the respondent-Company against the said order before the DRAT on 14.11.2017. While the appeal was pending, Review Application No. 1 of 2018 was filed on 18.12.2017 before the DRT by the respondent-Company after the appeal that
Decision Date : 21-01-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/501/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
contained in Part II bars the jurisdiction of a civil court in respect of any matter on which NCLT or NCLAT will have jurisdiction, Section 180 contained in Part III bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of any matter on which DRT or DRAT has jurisdiction. But curiously there
Decision Date : 03-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9170/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI
Secured Creditor is challenged in an Appeal filed under Section 17. A further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ) is also provided under Section 18 of the Act. 16. Section 14, inserted through the Amendment Act No. 1 of 2013, contemplates delegation of power to assist, by the
Decision Date : 23-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6295/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,VINEET SARAN
“without any lien.” 10. In Axis Bank3 the questions that arose for consideration were whether the money deposited, in order to maintain an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (‘ DRAT ’, for short) could be adjusted towards the amount due to DRAT as a precondition for considering the appeal on merits in terms of Section 18 of the Act, is not a secured asset. It is not a secured debt either, since the borrower or the aggrieved person has not created any security interest on such pre-deposit in favour of the secured creditor. If
Decision Date : 20-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6016/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : S.A. BOBDE,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,INDIRA BANERJEE
Terms and Conditions, as stipulated in Debts Recovery Tribunal (Salaries, Allowance and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Presiding Officer) Rules, 1998 and your retirement age is 62 years. Further, you are deputed by the Bank to DRAT , Allahabad, on 29.11.2001 and the term was extended the Board of the Bank A B C D E F G H 5 upto 29.11.2005, as a very special case. As you have joined DRT, Lucknow, after relief from DRAT , Allahabad, without our consent and without seeking relief from the service of the Bank, consequent to your fresh appointment, the Competent
Decision Date : 30-04-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4489/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,VINEET SARAN
to place their cases before the Tribunal. This Resolution be notified for information. Copy of this Resolution is also transmitted to Hon’ble Chairperson, DRAT Mumbai for necessary information and needful. Dated this 19th May, 2014″. (ix) That a complaint has been filed by the DRT,
Decision Date : 12-03-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/191/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA
Debts Recovery Tribunal delivered three separate judgments on 16.01.2015 allowing the applications filed by the respondent bank. Apparently, the said orders are final as no appeals have been preferred to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [“ DRAT ”], Mumbai. Recovery certificates
Decision Date : 29-01-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1291/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

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 thereupon moved DRT-III at Chennai for challenging the sale certificate. The proceeding was dismissed on 17 May 2013. On 11 September 2014, an appeal filed by the first respondent was allowed by the DRAT on the ground that the property which was sold, was agricultural and was exempt from
Decision Date : 20-07-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6641/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
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 efficacy of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the DRT and DRAT but opined that the same involved factual issues warranting production of evidence and a full-fledged trial – The approach of High Court is not tenable in law – Bank/Banking. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.
Decision Date : 17-05-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5248/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : N.V. RAMANA,S. ABDUL NAZEER
attacked Prem Dass. Manoj Kumar (A4) was wielding a spade (belcha), Surinder Kumar (A3) was carrying a DRAT (sickle) and other accused were armed with sticks. Manoj Kumar (A4) gave a belcha (spade) blow on the head of Prem Dass and accused Surinder Singh struck him with a blow of
Decision Date : 15-05-2018 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/795/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : S.A. BOBDE,L. NAGESWARA RAO
referred to as ‘the DRAT ’). In the challenge, the Appellate Tribunal directed for the second appeal to be disposed off within a month by the DRT. 4 Dated 26.03.2013 5 Dated 27.05.2013 6 Dated 31.07.2013 7 On 04.09.2013 8 Vide order dated 6.02.2014 A B C D E F G H 529 8. The DRT disposed The creditor filed an appeal to the order of the DRT10 in the DRAT which came to be allowed11 and the validity of the notice issued under Section 13(2) was upheld. Against the order of the DRAT setting aside the order of the DRT, the debtor filed the Writ Petitions leading up to the present
Decision Date : 19-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2928/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,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

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 be non est – When the parties were vigo1vusly pursuing the matter before DRT, DRAT , having trappings of the civil court, H 67 68 A B c D E SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. and also before the High Court, first respondent was not right in approaching MSMEDF Council –
Decision Date : 05-12-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5150/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : R.K. AGRAWAL,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
appellant then wrote a letter to PNB requesting them to refund their money with interest. This led to another dispute between the parties which was filed in the ORT and then before the appellate authority DRAT and finally, in the High Court at Allahabad in Writ Pctition(c) No. 22246/2015 by
Decision Date : 27-11-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/19847/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : ARUN MISHRA,S. ABDUL NAZEER
at the first instance. [Para 39) [812-F-H; 813- A-B) 4. It is also apparent that there are several rounds of litigation in spite of order of DRAT with respect to loan amount having attained finality, is not being honoured for recovery which B proceedings under the Securitization arbitration. Accordingly, status quo was ordered by the arbitrator which order is continuing to operate, is not disputed at the Bar. H MAHARAJ! EDUCATIONAL TRUST v. HOUSING & URBAN 797 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [ARUN MISHRA, J.] 4. The DRAT , in appeal vide order dated 6.10.2010
Decision Date : 08-05-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6463/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : JASTI CHELAMESWAR,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Bharat Singh and anti dated cheques/Demand Drafts were given to \’Oters to influence their votes. Another such DRAT ! drawn in favour of Rajkumari Saket has been brought to the notice of petitioner who was not able to encash it as she don’t have any account. When the petitioner enquired from her
Decision Date : 23-08-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8254/2016 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,S.A. BOBDE
enclosed, which was dated 4.4.2012. In the opening pai1 of the said Deed, the reference to PFA. which was mentioned in the earlier DRAT \ transfer deed, was omitted. In other respects, the draft remained the same which contained a clause under the caption ‘Consideration’ to the effect, “Pursuant
Decision Date : 22-04-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4359/2016

Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN
be allowed – On facts, deposit made before the DRAT is to be refunded to the first respondent-borrower – Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The actual appeal is contemplated under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction Act. Under Section 17, the scope of enquiry is limited to the steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets. The partial deposit before the DRAT as a pre-condition for considering the appeal on merits in terms of Section 18 of the Act, is not a secured asset. It is not a
Decision Date : 22-04-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4379/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN
of which an appeal was filed before the DRAT , which, by its order dated 30;6.2005, upset the DRT order and set aside the sale no~ice. However, by a judgment of the Madras High Court, in Ii challenge to the aforesaid order dated 30.6.2005, the Madras High Court set aside the DRAT order. The being the corporate guarantor of the appellant no. l company, filed an appeal challenging the sale notice of6.4.2013. On 13.5.2013, ORT Chennai dismissed this petition. Vide an order dated I 93~2014, the DRAT , Chennai, in an appeal made to it, directed, by way of an interim order, that
Decision Date : 29-01-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/614/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Tribunal (ORT), Allahabad, U.P., which was rejected vide order dated 23rd November, 2012. G The non-success before the ORT impelled the borrowers to prefer an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ), Allahabad, U.P. 7. At this stage, it is apposite to state that the third again. The respondent had preferred, as has been stated before, an appeal before the DRAT . The said appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 5 of2013. In the said appeal, the E following order came to be passed: F G H “During the pendency of the said application, a proposal was submitted by
Decision Date : 19-03-2015 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/781/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : H.L. DATTU,S.A. BOBDE,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
set aside the Order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (‘ DRAT ‘ E for short) and held that in view of the bar contained in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as ‘SICA’) no recovery proceedings could be Rs. 12.50 crores. ORT-I, Delhi, set aside the auction sale subject to payment of a certain amount, interest, expenses, etc. 8. Objecting to these conditions, the Company filed an C appeal to the DRAT , Delhi. The appellant also filed an appeal being aggrieved by the setting aside of the sale
Decision Date : 27-10-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5225/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : ANIL R. DAVE,DIPAK MISRA
in disposal of cases and granting of adjournments by ORT and DRAT – Object of the Act – Explained — Held: Delay in disposal of application by DRT and appeal by DRAT 0 has the potentiality or creating a corrosion in the economic spine of the country – Grant of an adjournment should be exception and not a routine and mechanical matter – Tribunals are expected to act in quite promptitude, so that an . ingenious litigant does not take recourse to dilatory toctics – In the case at hand, there was no reason for DRAT to keep E on adjourning the matter and finally dispose it by
Decision Date : 13-09-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8486/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU
the officers of the court, B staff, litigants and lawyers should be provided. 2. Increase in A DRAT must be Number of established in each DRTs/DRATs —- state where there is c a ORT or multiple DRTs. DRATs may be established in the city where the concerned High D Court of a State functioning of DRTs and DRAT , which fall within their respective jurisdictions. The High Courts shall ensure a smooth, efficient and transparent working of the said Tribunals. We are confident that through the timely and B ap12ropriate superintendence of the High Courts, the Tribunals sh~I’ ~dhere
Decision Date : 22-01-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/617/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA
earlier bidders. G H Appellants filed appeal, which was dismissed by DRAT . The order was challenged in writ court, who remanded the matter to DRAT . After remand, DRAT restored the sale in favour of the appellants. Workers’ Union challenged this order and High Court again PRAVIN GADA CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 613 remitted the matter to DRAT . After reconsidering the A matter, DRAT restored the sale in favour of the appellants. The matter was challenged by secured creditors and the workmen’s Union. The appellants made a submission before the Court that they were ready
Decision Date : 03-12-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8658/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : G.S. SINGHVI,H.L. DATTUDecision Date : 08-11-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9630/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : P. SATHASIVAM,B.S. CHAUHAN
calling them to pay the outstanding dues along with interest due thereon. The Company approached the bank for settlement of the accounts. However, the lite and H 1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R. A future interest. The ORT allowed the application. The DRAT upheld the decision (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ORA T’), Delhi and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2007. (d) Challenging the order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the DRAT , the Company preferred Writ Petition (C) No. 6069 G of 2007 before the High Court on 10.07.2007. Vide order dated 24.08.2007, the
Decision Date : 01-10-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8443/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
the application and the said order was correctly confirmed by c DRAT and by the High Court. No case can be said to have been made out by the appellants to interfere with those orders and the appeal deserves to be. dismissed. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our D the appellants have not made out any ground on the basis of which the .order passed by ORT, confirmed by DRAT and by the High Court can be set aside. From the record, it is clearly established that the suit waa instituted by the plaintiff Bank as early as in August 1993. The appellants
Decision Date : 31-07-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4960/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : S.B. SINHA,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
the High Court in the records of this Registry. Further, it is submitted that the list of Hon’ble Judges, B retired during 2006 and 2007 is submitted below 2006: 1. Hon’ble Thiru Justice T.V. MASILAMANI (Chairman DRAT ) c 29.05.2006 Chairman, DRAT • 2. Hon’ble Thiru Justice A.R. submitted for ~~ consideration and orders. Whether:- H the list of retired Hon’ble Judges except Hon’ble Thiru ,. – _.,,J N. KANNADASAN V. AJOY KHOSE AND OTHERS 685 [S.S. SINHA, J.] ~ Justice T.V. MASI LAMAN I (Chairman DRAT ) and including A -, N. Kannadasdan, Former Additional
Decision Date : 06-05-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7360/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : ARIJIT PASAYAT,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
STATE OF H.P. 239 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] —) wielding a ‘ DRAT ‘ and ‘Danda’. Surjit Singh hit the deceased on A the head with the ‘ DRAT ‘ and Rajesh Kumar assaulted with ‘Danda’ and gave blows on other parts of the body. The de- ceased started wailing whereas PWs.14 and 15 were bewil- dered. the injury on the head of the deceased could be caused by ‘ DRAT ‘ and other injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been inflicted by bamboo stick. E Shri Kai lash Chand (PW-22) who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Gagret re corded
Decision Date : 03-10-2008 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/639/2001 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : C.K. THAKKER,ALTAMAS KABIR
ORT allowed appeal No. 5212004 setting aside auction sale subject to fulfilling of certain conditions by the company with regard to payment of amount, interest etc. – Challenging the conditions imposed by ORT Company filing an appeal and cross appeal filed by auction purchaser- DRAT 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. > ~_. A filed second Reference before BIFR after order confirming the auction sale in favour of auction purchaser was passed by DRAT – Later, company was declared to be a sick company by~BIFR – Thus, provisions under s. 22 of SICA invoked by
Decision Date : 25-08-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5225/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : C.K. THAKKER,D.K. JAIN
Recovery Tribunal (ORTH, Mumbai, he ought to have approached Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ) by filing appeals against those orders. lfhe had grievance against the E Company or inaction on the part of the Authorities under Labour Laws on the ground that they had not protected the
Decision Date : 11-07-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4324/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : C.K. THAKKER,ALTAMAS KABIR
and answered plaintiff’s claim – Apart from suppression of fact, even on legal ground, it was not obligatory to serve notice on them once again – Code of Civil Procedure, 1 ~08 – 0. 9, r. 13 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article· 136. s.22(2)(g)- Powers of ORT and DRAT – Held: ORT and F DRAT application was dismissed .. Having remained unsuccessful before the DRAT and the High Court, defendants 7-9 filed the instant G appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The appellants have not made out any ground on the basis of which the order passed by the H ORT, confirmed by
Decision Date : 08-01-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/86/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
prosecution had only put questions in regard to the seizure of the blood stained earth and nothing more. According to ‘D’ apart from ‘KL’, ‘SP’ and ‘G’ came on the spot Why they had not been examined remained unexplained, According to the said witness, it was ‘K’ who inflicted the ‘ DRAT ‘ blow on the and PW-Ramesh Chander. Allegedly, when Subhash Chander reached the lane, Kaku Ram asked him as to why he had been creating problems and inflicted a DRAT blow on his forehead. Santosh Kumar (deceased) allegedly came forward to rescue his son, whereupon Sunderdas F exhorted Rattanlal
Decision Date : 10-04-2007 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1672/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : S.N. VARIAVA,H.K. SEMA
Calcutta. Two appeals were preferred before the DRAT . Appeal No. A-23/ 2000 was preferred by the appellant and Appeal No. A-6/200 I was preferred by the respondents herein. By the impugned judgment Appeal No. A-23/ 2000 was dismissed and Appeal No. A-6/2001 was allowed. In view of the order that
Decision Date : 04-11-2003 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8132/2001 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW,P.K. GOSWAMI,N.L. UNTWALIA
the reasons are at all required to be communicated to the assessee. It is submit- ted, on behalf of the Revenue,’ that the very fact DRAT reasons are C recorded in the file, although these are not communicated to the assessee, fully meets the requirement of section 127(1). We are un- .able
Decision Date : 05-12-1975 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/724/1975 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : A.N. RAY,P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY,HANS RAJ KHANNA,P.K. GOSWAMI
reasonably placed under a well-defined category in view of the scheme underlying the detailed provisions in the said Act. It is well settled DRAT article 14 does not abhor a reason able classification provided the basis of the classification has a rational relation to the object to be
Decision Date : 12-12-1974 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/345/1971 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG,A. ALAGIRISWAMI,V.R. KRISHNA IYERDecision Date : 10-12-1974 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/760/1967 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : HANS RAJ KHANNA,A. ALAGIRISWAMI
caused by Harchand Singh with a DRAT (sickle) and by J as want Singh with a kirpan. Relying upon the evidence of Ram Asra, the trial court convicted Harchand Singh and Jaswant Singh for offence under section 304 part II read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. Jaswinder Singh, who was sttated
Decision Date : 31-08-1973 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/32/1970 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : J.C. SHAH,G.K. MITTER
exceeding the principal, because of s. 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934; and (iv) the Custodian of the Evacuee Pro perty was not entitled to the decree absolute for sale, and DRAT the only partner. who had not migrated, could get a decree absolute in respect only of bis share.
Decision Date : 30-04-1969 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/608/1966 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : B. JAGANNADHADAS,SYED JAFFER IMAM,P. GOVINDA MENON,J.L. KAPUR
503 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. In response to the request of. . the District ·. standing counsel; . the Magistrate himself directed DRAT the com mission · should be issued as desired, on October 26, · 1951. . Further by the order dated November 12, 1951, the alleged · leading
Decision Date : 30-01-1957 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/50/1955 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : SUDHI RANJAN DAS,NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI,T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR,BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA,S.K. DAS
showed that he alone could have known of its exist ence there. The fire-arms expert examined the recovered pistol and the cartridge and after making scientific tests was of the definite opinion that the cartridge Ex. I had been fired from the pistol Ex. III. Held, DRAT the opinion of the
Decision Date : 29-11-1956 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/23/1956 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : B. JAGANNADHADAS,SYED JAFFER IMAM,P. GOVINDA MENON
scientific tests was of the definite opinion that the cartridge Ex. I had been fired from the pistol Ex. III. Held, DRAT the opinion of the fire-arms expert conclusively proved that the cartridge Ex. I had been fired from the pistol Ex. III. The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to
Decision Date : 21-11-1956 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/135/1956 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

DRAT Judgments, Supreme Court of India

MediumPulse

Recent Posts