Back
2026 Supreme(All) 174
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Dinesh Kumar Jindal – Petitioner
Versus
Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And Another – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 7466 of 2025
Decided On : 19-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Debt Recovery - Jurisdiction and Procedure
Act Referred
SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT : S.17
Headnote
(B) The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited to correcting serious derelictions of duty or grave injustices, not mere procedural delays. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a notice from the Registrar of DRT requiring parties to appear in a Securitisation Application. It was argued that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction, which was dismissed as the matter was subsequently listed for hearing before the Presiding Officer.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the objection raised regarding the Registrar's authority and emphasized the need for adherence to procedural rules without which the process would be hindered.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to issue notices in Securitisation Applications and the implications of procedural delays on the petitioner’s rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the procedural rules clearly allowed the Registrar to issue notices, and the grievance raised regarding delay was without merit since the substantive issue was addressed through later hearings.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Noel Victor
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges drt notice issued by registrar. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. jurisdiction issues regarding registrar's authority raised. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. registrar has power to issue notice in s.a. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. supreme court criteria for article 227 jurisdiction outlined. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. petition dismissed; counsel should avoid frivolous submissions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Suryansh Kumar Arora Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 11.11.2025 issued by the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the DRT’) in Securitisation Application No. 1144 of 2025. The notice reads as follows: -
"Whereas, in the above said case, the applicant has filed an application under Section 17 SARFAESI Act, 2002, Copy of the S.A. is enclosed herewith.
Take notice that you are hereby required to appear before the learned Registrar of the Tribunal, on 17th Day of November, 2025 at 10:30 A.M. in the forenoon in person or by a pleader/ advocate to show-cause why the said S.A. should not be allowed. Failing which the said S.A. will be heard and determined ex parte.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on 11th Day of November, 2025.”
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Registrar, DRT has no power to order appearance of the opposite parties before him to show cause why the S.A. should not be allowed. He has submitted that the admission, hearing and disposal of S.As. falls within the jurisdiction of the DRT, and this function should be exercised by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, not by its Registrar. Fixing of a date before the Registrar to show cause as to why the S.A. should not be admitted, would cause an undue delay in placing the matter before the Presiding Officer of the DRT, which in turn would cause an undue delay in hearing and disposal of the interim relief application of the petitioner and this delay would cause a serious prejudice to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has filed S.A. No. 1144 of 2025 before the DRT. On 11.11.2025, the Registrar DRT issued the impugned notice to the opposite parties directing them to appear on 17.11.2025. On 17.11.2025 the Registrar listed the matter for 01.12.2025 before the Presiding Officer of the DRT.
5. The present petition was presented before the Registrar Listing of this Court on 18.12.2025, i.e., after the S.A. had already been listed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT and the grievance of the petitioner that the matter ought to have been listed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT and not before the Registrar, had already been redressed on 01.12.2025.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Court suggested that as the grievance of the petitioner is merely regarding a delay caused in listing of the S.A. before the Presiding Officer of the DRT whereas the S.A. has already been listed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT and there is no pleading that any legal injury has been caused to the petitioner because of this delay, the petitioner should contest the matter before the DRT and the question of jurisdiction of the Registrar has become merely academic, the learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to issue the notice and an action taken without jurisdiction can very well be challenged before this Court even when it causes no prejudice to the petitioner.
7. The Court requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to raise even this plea before the Presiding Officer of the DRT and to spare the time of this Court for being utilized for deciding the matters of those litigants who have no alternative remedy, but the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he can approach the DRT only against an action of
