Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Nature of DRAT Orders: Several sources discuss whether DRAT (Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal) orders are substantive adjudications or interlocutory/remedial in nature. For example, Source Gade Sreenivas Reddy vs The State Bank of India - Telangana emphasizes that the order dated 06.03.2025 is an adjudication of a substantive appeal, referencing the debt amount, whereas the appeal in that case was primarily for natural justice rather than debt adjudication. Similarly, other sources clarify that DRAT orders can either affirm DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) decisions or deal with procedural aspects, affecting their appealability and legal standing Gade Sreenivas Reddy vs The State Bank of India - Telangana.
Appeal Grounds and Procedural Issues: Multiple sources highlight procedural lapses and misrepresentations during appeals. For instance, Bhaskar Prabhudas Parekh VS Bank of India - Gujarat indicates that the Bank misled DRAT by withholding relevant documents, leading to an order in favor of the Bank. Others note delays and the importance of compliance with deposit conditions before appeal hearings, as seen in MRS VIJANTH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER - Karnataka and SANDIP NARENDRAKUMAR PATEL V/s AXIS BANK LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED OFFICER - Gujarat.
Rejection and Dismissal of Appeals: Several cases involve the dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance with deposit requirements or procedural lapses. For example, MSTC Limited, A Government of India Enterprise under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Steel, New Delhi, Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 VS Standard Chartered Bank, A body incorporated under thereafter Provisions of the Royal Charter, 1853 With its principal office at 1, Aldermanbury Square - Bombay describes how DRAT dismissed a petitioner’s appeal for failure to deposit the requisite amount, which was later challenged in court. Similarly, Gautambhai Govindlal Shah vs Bank Of Baroda - Gujarat discusses dismissal orders based on procedural errors, with petitions seeking to set aside such orders.
Court Interventions and Directions: Courts have intervened in DRAT proceedings, directing the tribunal to decide appeals expeditiously or reconsider orders. For instance, YOGESH JAIN & ANR. Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Delhi and MRS VIJANTH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER - Karnataka mention courts directing DRAT to hear appeals on merits after delays or non-compliance, emphasizing judicial oversight in administrative proceedings.
Appealability and Judicial Review: Some sources explore whether DRAT orders are appealable or subject to judicial review, especially when procedural irregularities or misrepresentations are involved. The importance of high proof standards for allegations of mala fides and the role of authenticated orders versus draft orders are discussed in E. P Royappa VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court and E. P. ROYAPPA VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court.
Legal Principles and Precedents: Several references include citations of legal precedents, such as the Bank of New South Wales case (1950 AC 235) and rulings on the validity of ordinances and administrative orders, highlighting the legal framework governing DRAT appeals and their judicial review.
The collected sources collectively indicate that DRAT orders can be both substantive and procedural, with their appealability contingent on the nature of the order and procedural compliance. Many appeals are dismissed due to non-compliance with deposit conditions or procedural irregularities, but courts often intervene to ensure justice, directing DRAT to hear appeals on merits. The distinction between draft and authenticated orders is significant in assessing the legality of administrative actions, and allegations of mala fides require high proof standards. Overall, the appeal process before DRAT involves complex procedural and substantive considerations, with judicial oversight playing a crucial role in ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.
References:- Gade Sreenivas Reddy vs The State Bank of India - Telangana- SANGITA W/o ASHOK PALOD VS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHOPAL - Madhya Pradesh- Bhaskar Prabhudas Parekh VS Bank of India - Gujarat- MSTC Limited, A Government of India Enterprise under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Steel, New Delhi, Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 VS Standard Chartered Bank, A body incorporated under thereafter Provisions of the Royal Charter, 1853 With its principal office at 1, Aldermanbury Square - Bombay- YOGESH JAIN & ANR. Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Delhi- MRS VIJANTH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER - Karnataka- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre VS State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court- Ram Manohar Lohia VS State Of Bihar - Supreme Court- E. P Royappa VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court- Rustom Cowasjee Cooper: Rustom Cowasjee Cooper: T. M. Gurubuxani VS Union Of India - Supreme Court- E. P. ROYAPPA VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court- No Stamp Duty on Agreement to Lease Without Present Demise: Bombay High Court- Indian High Courts Clarify Compromise, Speech, Bail Issues- Indian High Courts Deliver Landmark Criminal Decisions- Indian High Courts Reshape Criminal Law in Key Rulings - High Court of Delhi- Recent Rulings Curb Overreach in Cheque Cases and Hate Speech - High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
In the complex world of debt recovery in India, borrowers and lenders often face orders from the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). A common query arises: Drat Order Appeal – how can one challenge these orders effectively? Whether it's a dismissal due to deposit shortfalls or procedural lapses, understanding the appeal process is crucial. This guide breaks down the legal framework, drawing from key judgments and procedural norms under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
DRAT orders are quasi-judicial and typically final, but they aren't unassailable. They can be challenged via writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution if there's illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Appeals to DRAT itself require strict compliance, especially with deposit conditions under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Failure here often leads to dismissal without merits review. The distinction between substantive and procedural orders is key – procedural ones focus on jurisdiction or compliance, while substantive delve into debt merits. Courts emphasize reasoned orders; lack thereof invites scrutiny. SRS Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. VS Kamal Garg - 2022 3 Supreme 109V. Ravi Kumar vs A.P.Mahesh CoOperative Urban Bank Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 8581
DRAT operates as an appellate body over Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT). Its orders are subject to judicial review under Article 226 for errors like jurisdictional overreach or procedural flaws. For instance, in a case where the DRAT order was challenged, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to invoke Article 226 to challenge the DRAT order on the ground of illegality. V. Ravi Kumar vs A.P.Mahesh CoOperative Urban Bank Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 8581
Other sources highlight DRAT's role in varied scenarios. In Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Thru. Its Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava VS Union of India Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Financial Services Thru. Secy. - 2024 Supreme(All) 1719 - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1719, an order by the Central Government to the Registrar of DRAT, Allahabad, dated 15.12.2022, remained non-compliant, leading to court directions for counter-affidavits. Similarly, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR. Vs. M/S. SCK INFRATECH PVT. LTD & ANR. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5581 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5581 notes the Presiding Officer of DRAT expressing inability to hear a case, directing transfer: the Presiding Officer... has expressed his inability to hear the case and directed that the appeal be transferred to some other DRAT.
This underscores that DRAT orders can be procedural (e.g., transfers or compliance) or substantive, affecting challenge avenues. Purely procedural orders within jurisdiction may resist merit-based writs, but irregularities open doors for review.
Appealing to DRAT demands a 50% pre-deposit of the debt or claimed amount, whichever is less. Non-compliance results in dismissal. As seen in Gade Sreenivas Reddy vs The State Bank of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16206, failure to comply with this deposit can result in dismissal of the appeal. When appeals are withdrawn or disposed, deposits are refunded, as they're held by the tribunal, not as secured assets.
Additional cases reinforce this. In MSTC Limited, A Government of India Enterprise under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Steel, New Delhi, Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 VS Standard Chartered Bank, A body incorporated under thereafter Provisions of the Royal Charter, 1853 With its principal office at 1, Aldermanbury Square - Bombay, DRAT dismissed an appeal for failing the deposit, later challenged in court. MRS VIJANTH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER - Karnataka stresses timely compliance to avoid delays. Courts often direct DRAT to proceed post-compliance, ensuring appeals aren't stifled by technicalities. Udit Aggarwal VS Authorised Officer, State Bank of India - 2019 Supreme(Del) 446 - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 446 directs: The learned DRAT shall proceed to deal with the appeal in the light of this order... The petitioner shall then be entitled to redeem the mortgage at the value so arrived at.
Writ petitions are the primary recourse post-DRAT. Grounds include illegality, lack of reasons, or procedural irregularity. In V. Ravi Kumar vs A.P.Mahesh CoOperative Urban Bank Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 8581, the court allowed a writ as DRAT exceeded jurisdiction on interest reduction. The doctrine of 'application of mind' mandates reasons in orders; absence is challengeable. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank VS Jagdish Sharan Varshney - 2009 2 Supreme 669
From other insights, auction purchasers appealed DRAT reversals in Punjab National Bank, New Delhi VS Surinder Pal - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 2578 - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2578: Being aggrieved of the order of DRT, the auction-purchasers preferred an appeal before DRAT. Dismissals for procedural errors, like in Canara Bank VS Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 1040 - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1040 – By the impugned order dated 10th September, 2013, the DRAT dismissed the appeal – often lead to writs. Courts intervene for fairness, as in YOGESH JAIN & ANR. Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Delhi, directing expeditious hearings.
Limitations: Writs don't re-appraise merits; only illegality or jurisdiction issues. High proof needed for mala fides. E. P Royappa VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court
Procedural appeals tackle deposit, delay condonation, or jurisdiction; substantive ones address merits. Gade Sreenivas Reddy vs The State Bank of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16206 clarifies: the appeal was not a substantive appeal but a procedural one. Misrepresentation, like withholding documents, vitiates orders. Bhaskar Prabhudas Parekh VS Bank of India - Gujarat
Sources like Blue Coast Hotels Limited VS IFCI Limited - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 461 - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 461 show DRAT reversing DRT on land use: DRAT however, reversed the findings... by holding that out of 56 acres, 80% of area has been used for the hotel purpose. Such substantive shifts heighten scrutiny on appeal.
Draft vs. authenticated orders matter; only latter bind. E. P. ROYAPPA VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court
DRAT order appeals hinge on procedural rigor, deposit compliance, and jurisdictional bounds. While DRAT provides appellate relief, writs under Article 226 offer oversight for flaws. Cases show courts ensuring fairness – from deposit refunds to merit hearings – but emphasize proof and reasons. Borrowers: comply early; lenders: document meticulously.
In summary, DRAT orders demand precision; challenges succeed on illegality or procedure, not merits alone. Stay informed, act promptly, and seek professional guidance. This landscape evolves, with precedents like SRS Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. VS Kamal Garg - 2022 3 Supreme 109 guiding paths forward.
References1. SRS Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. VS Kamal Garg - 2022 3 Supreme 109: High Court overreach on merits.2. Gade Sreenivas Reddy vs The State Bank of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16206: Procedural appeals, deposits.3. V. Ravi Kumar vs A.P.Mahesh CoOperative Urban Bank Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 8581: Writs for illegality.4. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank VS Jagdish Sharan Varshney - 2009 2 Supreme 669: Reasons in orders.5. Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Thru. Its Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava VS Union of India Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Financial Services Thru. Secy. - 2024 Supreme(All) 1719 - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1719, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR. Vs. M/S. SCK INFRATECH PVT. LTD & ANR. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5581 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5581, Udit Aggarwal VS Authorised Officer, State Bank of India - 2019 Supreme(Del) 446 - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 446, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi VS Surinder Pal - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 2578 - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2578, Blue Coast Hotels Limited VS IFCI Limited - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 461 - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 461, Canara Bank VS Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 1040 - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1040, J. S. Arora VS State Bank of Hyderabad - 2014 Supreme(Del) 1248 - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 1248, MSTC Limited, A Government of India Enterprise under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Steel, New Delhi, Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 VS Standard Chartered Bank, A body incorporated under thereafter Provisions of the Royal Charter, 1853 With its principal office at 1, Aldermanbury Square - Bombay, Bhaskar Prabhudas Parekh VS Bank of India - Gujarat, MRS VIJANTH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER - Karnataka, E. P Royappa VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court, E. P. ROYAPPA VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court
(Word count: 1028. General insights based on cited sources; not legal advice.)
#DRATAppeal, #SARFAESI, #DebtRecovery
Counsel further submits that the impugned order of the DRAT dated 06.03.2025 is adjudication of a substantive appeal which would be evident from the reference made by the DRAT to the amount of debt. ... The DRT-I dismissed the petitioner’s I.A. by the docket order dated 01.10.2024. The petitioner’s appeal before the DRAT arises out of the said docket order#HL_....
Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before DRAT. The other side was put to notice. After hearing the parties, by impugned order dated 23-9-2019 (Annexure P-5) the learned DRAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of learned DRT. ... Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of DRAT whereby order of learned DRT was affi....
From the above order passed by the DRAT, it is clear that the respondent-Bank made misrepresentation before the DRAT and misled the DRAT and Appeal was allowed in favour of the respondent-Bank. 3.11. ... Though the aforesaid order was passed by the DRT, the same was not produced or disclosed before the DRAT in the year 2019 when the Appeal No.7 of 2014....
Petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 2018 before DRAT for challenging the said order dated 16 September 2017 which was a decree on admission. This Appeal filed by the Petitioner was within the period of limitation. ... DRAT however, mis-interpreted the said order dated 2 January 2018 to construe that the Petitioner had in fact never sought any liberty at the time of withdrawal ....
The order passed by the Central Government communicated to the Registrar of the DRAT, Allahabad by a letter sent by the Government of India dated 15.12.2022 has not yet been complied with. ... However, it was pointed out that Writ-C No.7725 of 2022, a counter affidavit has to be filed separately by the DRAT, Allahabad, in pursuance of an order passed on 16.01.2023. 12. ... The Court thereafter passed an order#HL....
Appeal No. ... DRAT. ... for not entertaining the appeal. ... other DRAT. ... Vide Order dated 17th August, 2023, the instant writ petition had been disposed of with directions to the DRAT to decide the Petitioners’ appeal as expeditiously as possible, and
to consider the appeal on merits, since the appellant has complied interim order of the DRAT dated 17.04.2023. ... By order dated 17.04.2023, DRAT directed the - 5 - petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,97,29,181/- as a pre-condition to entertain the appeal. ... If DRAT is satisfied with regard to deposit of Rs.1,97,29,181/-, DR....
In terms of the said order, the Presiding Officer of the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) has expressed his inability to hear the case and directed that the appeal be transferred to some other DRAT as he did not want to try this appeal. 3. ... (C) 952/2024 page 1 of 3 disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court requesting the DRAT to decide the petit....
the DRAT, Mumbai vide order dated 23.11.2022 passed in M.A. ... Secondly, the petitioner also preferred Appeal No.163 of 2012 before the DRAT, Mumbai, whereby the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the DRT, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.10 of 2011 was challenged. ... Another appeal being Appeal (Lodging) No.312 of 2012 along with M.A. No.561 of 2012 seeking con....
Thus, on three occasions, the petitioners were granted time by the DRAT, Mumbai to deposit the amount. However, the petitioners could not manage to pay the amount and therefore, the DRAT, Mumbai vide order dated 19.02.2024 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. ... It is the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the appeal before the DRAT, Mumbai, time to deposit the amou....
The learned DRAT shall proceed to deal with the appeal in the light of this order. The DRAT shall have the property of the petitioner valued either on its own, or by requiring the DRT to undertake the said exercise independently, but with the participation of the parties. The petitioner shall then be entitled to redeem the mortgage at the value so arrived at by the DRAT/DRT.
It was held that the auction purchasers cannot ask for refund of the money paid in pursuant to the auction. Being aggrieved of the order of DRT, the auction-purchasers preferred an appeal before DRAT.
BCHL resisted the same by relying upon the documents/submissions recorded by DRT. In order dated 10 September 2014, DRAT however, reversed the findings of the said DRT by holding that out of 56 acres, 80% of area has been used for the hotel purpose and not for agricultural purpose. Therefore, BCHL filed the present Writ Petition No. 222 of 2015, on 4 October 2014. On 31 March 2014, DRT allowed Securitization Application filed by BCHL. On 10 September 2014, DRAT allowed the Appeal and....
The petitioner, therefore, sought to recover the amount claimed by it towards commission in respect of the said guarantees from the balance sale proceeds lying with the DRT. The petitioner challenged the order before the DRAT. By the impugned order dated 10th September, 2013, the DRAT dismissed the appeal.
6. After the above order, the DRT Delhi considered the pleadings and materials before it as well as the submissions of the parties and by an order of 05.10.2010, dismissed the application under the SARFAESI Act by the present writ petitioners. The latter, therefore, approached the DRAT, which by the impugned order rejected the appeal.
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
