Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Dinesh Kumar Jindal – Appellant
Versus
Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar – Respondent
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 sub
The Registrar of Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue notices in Securitisation Applications, and procedural delays do not constitute grounds for intervention under Article 227 without su....
The District Magistrate can correct typographical errors in orders under the SARFAESI Act without that being a review; appeals must be filed under Section 18 if available.
Subsection 3 of Section 13 makes it clear that a notice under Subsection 2 shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower. If Ms.Lodha’s submission were to be accepted, then the word “shall....
Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, where DRT has exceeded in exercising its jurisdiction.
Right of redemption under SARFAESI Act extinguishes on publication of auction notice; DRT cannot thereafter set aside auction and permit effective redemption, rendering such order without jurisdictio....
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate; it can't correct mere errors by subordinate courts unless there is a serious dereliction of duty or failure of justice.
Point of Law : There is no repugnancy nor inconsistency between the two remedies under the RDB Act and the Securitisation Act, the Supreme Court observed that “Together they constitute one remedy and....
A notice addressed to deceased persons under the SARFAESI Act is void, and petitioners who pursued statutory remedies cannot invoke writ jurisdiction without exhausting available appellate options.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
