JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 20.06.2019 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Delhi whereby, the petitioner’s application under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter ‘the SARFAESI Act’) read with Rule 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2550/2020 Page 1 of 26 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereafter ‘the SIE Rules’) for the recovery of balance amount of ₹6,92,551.63 along with interest, was rejected on the ground that the same was less than ₹10,00,000 and was therefore, not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal - III.

2. The principal question to be addressed is whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain a claim for less than ₹10,00,000/- under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act.

Facts in Brief

3. The petitioner entered into a Loan Agreement on 30.12.2015 bearing Loan Account No. 4938084 for an amount of ₹23,00,000 with respondent no.1 and 2. Thereafter, respondent no.1 and 2 created security interest in respect of the built up property captioned 1/16953, First Floor, Khasra No. 270, Village Skidarpur, Abadu Babarpur Road, Shivaji Park, ILAQA, Shahadra, Delhi (hereafter ‘the Property’) to secure the Loan and accordingly, deposited original title deeds for the same to the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 and 2 were unable to comply with their repayment obligations and therefore, the loan amount was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

5. Admittedly, on 27.06.2017, the petitioner issued a demand notice to respondent no.1 and 2 calling upon them to discharge their liability Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2550/2020 Page 2 of 26 of ₹24,71,141.85 along with interest and other charges within a period of 60 days from the said date.

6. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as a secured creditor, before the learned District Court, Karkardooma, Delhi. On 09.02.2018, the learned District Court appointed one Sh. Praveen Kumar Chauhan as a receiver to take the possession of the Property on behalf of the petitioner.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner sold the Property for an amount of ₹21,38,000/- and issued a sale certificate dated 15.09.2018 to the successful purchaser.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after adjusting the sale proceeds recovered from the loan amount, an amount of ₹6,92,551.63 remained outstanding. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 11 of the Rules titled IDFC First Bank Ltd. v. Deepak Yadav and Anr. in O.A. Dy. No. 406/2019, before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal - III.

9. The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III dismissed the petitioner’s application, by the impugned order.

Submissions on behalf of the parties

10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the pecuniary limit under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2550/2020 Page 3 of 26 (hereafter ‘the RDB Act’) is inapplicable for recovery of balance amount by the secured creditor under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 11 of the SIE Rules. It is contended that an application under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act is not an application under the RDB Act and therefore, the provisions of the RDB Act are not applicable. The said application is required to be independently adjudicated under the SARFAESI Act and in accordance with the SIE Rules. It is submitted that there is no provision in the SARFAESI Act that corresponds to Section 1(4) of the RDB Act and limits the amount to be claimed by a bank or a financial institution to ₹10,00,000.

11. According to the learned counsel for the petitione