The Legal Maintainability of Impleading the Debt Recovery Tribunal as a Party in Writ Proceedings

When dealing with debt recovery and the enforcement of securities, litigants often find themselves entangled in complex proceedings before specialized tribunals. One of the most frequent points of confusion arises when a party seeks to challenge an order or an action by filing a writ petition in a High Court. This often leads to a critical procedural question: Can Drt be Made Party in a Writ?

Understanding the relationship between the High Court's writ jurisdiction and the specialized nature of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is essential for ensuring that legal challenges are maintainable and not dismissed on technical grounds.

The General Rule on Impleading the DRT

As a general rule, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot be made a party in a writ petition. The DRT is established as a specialized tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, designed to provide an autonomous and expedited mechanism for the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. Because the DRT functions as a judicial body with its own set of procedures and appellate structures, courts have consistently maintained that it is not an appropriate party to be impleaded in a writ proceeding 2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 73 M/S. ANJALI MOTORS, PHULBANI Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SASTRA DIV.,NEW DELHI - Orissa.

The rationale behind this is that the DRT is the adjudicating authority. In legal practice, it is generally an established principle that the court or tribunal passing an order does not need to be made a party to a challenge against that order, provided the order itself is the subject of the petition.

Maintainability and the Availability of Alternative Remedies

One of the primary reasons why writ petitions targeting the DRT are dismissed is the existence of an alternate remedy. Under the legal framework of debt recovery, if a party is aggrieved by an order of the DRT, the proper course of action is to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

Courts frequently dismiss petitions that attempt to bypass the DRAT. For instance, when a petitioner seeks specific details of a loan account or directions regarding a proposal while already having a pending matter before the tribunal, the courts view the writ petition as an attempt to circumvent the proper forum. In one such instance, the court held that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked for such a purpose

M/S. ANJALI MOTORS, PHULBANI Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SASTRA DIV.,NEW DELHI

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227

While the general rule prohibits making the DRT a party to resolve substantive debt disputes, the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not entirely extinguished. Writ jurisdiction is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as:

• Violations of Fundamental Rights: If an action by the tribunal or the bank violates constitutional guarantees.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: When the DRT has acted entirely without jurisdiction or in excess of its legal authority.
• Procedural Arbitrariness: When the tribunal's failure to act leads to a miscarriage of justice.

For example, in cases where a tribunal reserves orders on a crucial issue like jurisdiction but fails to pronounce them for an extended period, the High Court may intervene. In one case, where a status quo order was extended repeatedly for over eight months without a final decision on jurisdiction, the court found that the order of status quo was illegal and arbitrary and allowed the writ petition 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 243.

However, even in these scenarios, the court's role is typically to direct the tribunal to perform its duty rather than to substitute the DRT's adjudication with its own. This is seen in cases where the court may dispose of a writ by directing appropriate action by the Tribunal regarding a pending securitization application 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48944.

Distinguishing Between Parties to the Dispute and the Tribunal

A common error in drafting writ petitions is the failure to distinguish between the adjudicating body (the DRT) and the parties involved in the recovery process. Disputes involving auction purchasers, mortgagors, or tenants regarding a secured asset are substantive issues that belong within the DRT's domain.

Under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, grievances related to the sale of property or the rights of a tenant are specifically designated for the DRT. Courts have clarified that the DRT is the appropriate forum for addressing claims and grievances under the SARFAESI Act 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3612. Consequently, parties seeking to implead auction purchasers or challenge sale procedures should do so within the DRT proceedings rather than initiating a separate writ petition.

Administrative Oversight and Judicial Conduct

There is a distinct difference between challenging a judicial order of the DRT and challenging the administrative conduct of its officers. Writ jurisdiction may be invoked to seek a mandamus for inquiry into the conduct of a Presiding Officer if there are allegations of misbehaviour or incompetency.

In such administrative matters, the petition is typically directed toward the Central Government or the Chairperson of the DRAT, rather than the DRT as a judicial entity. For example, in a case involving allegations of nepotism and arbitrary orders, the court directed the Central Government to conduct a preliminary scrutiny regarding the allegations against the Presiding Officer 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1719.

Summary of Legal Takeaways

Navigating the intersection of tribunal proceedings and High Court writs requires a strict adherence to jurisdictional boundaries. The following points summarize the current legal position:

• General Inadmissibility: The DRT generally cannot be impleaded as a party in a writ petition because it is a specialized judicial body.
• Alternative Forums: The DRT and DRAT are the designated forums for debt recovery and SARFAESI disputes. Petitions seeking loan details or challenging sale notices are typically dismissed if an application can be made within the DRT

  M/S. ANJALI MOTORS, PHULBANI Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SASTRA DIV.,NEW DELHI

  .
• Exceptional Intervention: High Courts may intervene under Article 226/227 only in cases of jurisdictional errors, gross procedural delays, or constitutional violations 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 243.
• Correct Impleadment: Parties such as banks, borrowers, and auction purchasers are the correct parties for dispute adjudication; the tribunal itself is not.

In conclusion, while the High Court maintains supervisory jurisdiction, the autonomy of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is highly protected. Litigants are generally expected to exhaust all remedies within the tribunal and appellate system before seeking extraordinary relief through a writ. This information is provided for general educational purposes and may vary based on the specific facts of a case.