[2025:RJ-JD:46289]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13938/2025 Bank Of Baroda, Branch Office At 10 Pal Link Road, Pal Road, Near Radha Krishna Mandir, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Bina Mathur W/o H.c. Mathur, 354, 4Th C Marg, Sardarpura Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

2. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Delhi, 3Rd Floor, Hotel Samrat, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shagun Mathur.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

27/10/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Bank with the following reliefs:

“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or otherwise, directing the Hon'ble Debt Appellate Recovery Tribunal, Delhi to expeditiously dispose in time-bound manner of Regular Appeal 362/2023, pending since 2023.

b) Pass any such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, the petitioner–Bank preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, on 26.10.2023. However, despite the passage of considerable time, the said appeal has not been decided.

3. She submits that in terms of Section 20(6) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, every appeal is required to be decided as expeditiously as possible, and an endeavour shall be made to dispose of such appeal finally within a period of six months from the date of its filing.

4. In this context, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi & Ors.: (2013) 15 SCC 341 wherein it was emphatically held that the very object of the RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act is the speedy recovery of debts and that tribunals must act with utmost promptitude. The Court observed that unnecessary adjournments and delays defeat the legislative intent and frustrate the purpose of these special enactments. It was further held that the tribunals are required to decide matters expeditiously, guided by fairness, principles of natural justice, and the larger public interest, being free from undue technicalities of procedural law. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“16. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. MANU/SC/0541/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 110 this Court restated the purpose of bringing the SARFAESI Act and in that context observed the role of the tribunal as under:

“23. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 casts a duty on the Tribunal to consider whether the measures taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security interest are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. If the Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that the measures taken by the secured creditor are not in consonance with Sub-section (4) of Section 13, then it can direct the secured creditor to restore management of the business or possession of the secured assets to the borrower. On the other hand, if the Tribunal finds that the recourse taken by the secured creditor under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor can take recourse to one or more of the measures specified in Section 13(4) for recovery of its secured debt.

24. Sub-section (5) of Section 17 prescribes the time- limit of sixty days within which an application made Under Section 17 is required to be disposed of. The proviso to this Sub-section envisages extension of time, but the outer limit for adjudication of an application is four months. If the Tribunal fails to decide the application within a maximum period of four months, then either pa