Justice Over Technique: High Court Overturns DRT Dismissal

In a significant ruling emphasizing the primacy of substantial justice over procedural rigidness, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has set aside an order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that tribunals must focus on the merits of a case rather than allowing technical failures to obstruct the path of justice.

The Backdrop: A Five-Year Legal Limbo

The petitioners, Kishan Lal Sharma and his family members, had initiated an action under Section 17 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) back in 2020. The case centered on a loan dispute involving Laxmi India Finleasecap Pvt. Ltd. and Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited.

For five years, the matter remained pending before the DRT, during which time it was entertained, arguments were heard, and interim orders were issued. However, in a sudden turn of events on August 12, 2025, the DRT dismissed the Securitisation Application (SA). The reasoning provided was purely technical: not all petitioners had signed the pleading or the supporting affidavit, and the tribunal alleged that not all borrowers had been formally joined as parties.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioners argued that they had submitted a valid Vakalatnama on behalf of all concerned borrowers, which should have been sufficient to represent their collective interest before the tribunal. Citing legal precedent, they argued that procedural requirements should not act as a barrier to the fundamental right to seek judicial remedy.

Conversely, the respondents contended that the DRT’s order was appealable to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), asserting that the writ petition was an inappropriate forum. They maintained that the DRT acted correctly in dismissing the application due to the lack of individual signatures and affidavits from all interested parties.

The Court’s Analysis: Procedure as a ‘Handmaid’

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the respondents' argument regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sathyanath & Anr. v. Sarojmani (2022) and Kailash v. Nanhku , the Court clarified that rules of procedure exist to facilitate the resolution of disputes, not to defeat them.

The Court held that once a petition has been entertained, an interim order passed, and the matter kept pending for five years, it becomes wholly inequitable to dispose of the case on a technicality without considering the substantive merits. The Court noted that in cases where an authority acts in "defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure," the High Court is well within its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene.

Key Observations

• On the Objective of Procedure: "All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice."
• On Judicial Duty: "The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer."
• On Procedural Tyranny: "Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice."
• On Tribunal Accountability: "The DRT, instead of rejecting the application on technical counts, should have decided the application on its merits."

The Road Ahead

The High Court has quashed the DRT’s dismissal order and remitted the matter back to the tribunal for a fresh decision on its merits. Demonstrating a sense of urgency, Justice Dhand directed the DRT to make all possible endeavors to dispose of the SA expeditiously, ideally within two months.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to quasi-judicial bodies that procedural compliance, while necessary, must never supersede the fundamental goal of delivering justice in an adversarial system.