Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Multiple Reliefs in I A Filed Before DRT - The provisions allow for a range of reliefs beyond mere monetary adjustments, including declarations, injunctions, and ancillary reliefs. The reliefs can be comprehensive and may include challenging notices, seeking stay of proceedings, or claiming damages. These reliefs are within the jurisdiction of the DRT if they relate to recovery of debts or security enforcement, but some civil reliefs like declarations or injunctions may require careful consideration of jurisdiction. ["N. UmayalAchi vs DBS Bank of India Ltd. - Madras"] ["Regional Manager, Union Bank of India VS Punya Coal Road Lines, A proprietorship concern - Bombay"] ["Nitin Ghanshyambhai Mehta VS Collector and District Magistrate - Gujarat"] ["SANGITA W/o ASHOK PALOD VS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHOPAL - Madhya Pradesh"] ["State Bank of Patiala v. Chair Person Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad and Others - Allahabad"] ["Rajdhani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. VS Punjab And Sind Bank - Delhi"] ["Bhaskar Prabhudas Parekh VS Bank of India - Gujarat"]
Jurisdiction and Scope of Reliefs - The DRT's jurisdiction encompasses claims directly related to debt recovery, including recovery notices, auction proceedings, and applications under the SARFAESI Act or RDB Act. However, the scope of reliefs can extend to ancillary or incidental reliefs, such as damages or declarations, provided they are connected to the debt recovery process. Civil suits seeking reliefs like declarations or injunctions may sometimes be entertained if they pertain to the debt or security interests. ["Regional Manager, Union Bank of India VS Punya Coal Road Lines, A proprietorship concern - Bombay"] ["Nitin Ghanshyambhai Mehta VS Collector and District Magistrate - Gujarat"] ["SANGITA W/o ASHOK PALOD VS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHOPAL - Madhya Pradesh"]
Filing Multiple Reliefs and Maintainability - Plaintiffs often draft suits to include multiple reliefs to enhance maintainability or to seek alternative remedies. The courts have observed that claiming multiple reliefs, including damages or declarations, can be permissible if they are within the scope of DRT's jurisdiction; otherwise, such suits may be dismissed or transferred. The courts also emphasize that reliefs ancillary to debt recovery are typically within DRT's competence, but civil reliefs independent of debt issues may require civil courts' intervention. ["Regional Manager, Union Bank of India VS Punya Coal Road Lines, A proprietorship concern - Bombay"] ["Nitin Ghanshyambhai Mehta VS Collector and District Magistrate - Gujarat"] ["SANGITA W/o ASHOK PALOD VS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHOPAL - Madhya Pradesh"]
Challenges to Notices and Proceedings - The DRT has jurisdiction to entertain challenges to recovery notices issued under SARFAESI or RDB Act, and reliefs such as stay of proceedings or declaration of invalid notices can be sought within the DRT. However, claims that are purely civil in nature, unrelated to debt or security enforcement, may be outside its scope. Courts have also noted that multiple proceedings—such as appeals, writs, or civil suits—can be filed simultaneously, but the reliefs sought must align with the tribunal's jurisdiction. ["Dinesh Chandra Tiwari S/o Shri B. S. Tiwari VS Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur - Chhattisgarh"] ["VELLARA ANTONY SUNNY vs INDUSIND BANK LTD. - Kerala"] ["GOVINDANKUTTY. E.P vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD - Kerala"]
Summary and Conclusion - In conclusion, the legal framework permits filing of multiple reliefs in I A (Suits or Applications) before the DRT, including monetary recovery, declaration, injunction, or damages, provided they are connected to the debt or security enforcement process. The scope of reliefs is broad but must stay within the jurisdictional limits of the DRT. Civil reliefs that are unrelated to debt recovery may need to be pursued in civil courts. Proper drafting and understanding of jurisdiction are crucial to ensure the maintainability of such reliefs. ["N. UmayalAchi vs DBS Bank of India Ltd. - Madras"] ["Regional Manager, Union Bank of India VS Punya Coal Road Lines, A proprietorship concern - Bombay"] ["SANGITA W/o ASHOK PALOD VS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHOPAL - Madhya Pradesh"]
In the complex world of debt recovery proceedings in India, borrowers and creditors often face procedural hurdles when challenging or enforcing rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, or the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act). A common question arises: Multiple reliefs can be asked in I.A filed before DRT? The short answer is yes—generally, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can entertain multiple reliefs in a single Interlocutory Application (IA), provided they align with its jurisdiction and statutory framework. This blog post dives deep into the legal position, supported by key judgments and practical insights.
Whether you're a borrower contesting possession notices or a bank seeking recovery and injunctions, understanding this can streamline your strategy. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The DRT has broad authority to adjudicate interconnected reliefs related to debt recovery, possession of secured assets, and ancillary matters. Multiple reliefs in a single IA—or even across applications—are allowed if they pertain to the same subject matter and fall within the DRT's jurisdiction. This flexibility ensures efficient resolution without multiplicity of proceedings. Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. VS Small Industries Development Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014)
Key judicial affirmations include:- The DRT can consider all measures taken by the secured creditor collectively, such as recovery and possession, in one go. Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. VS Small Industries Development Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014)- Amendments and challenges to multiple aspects can be entertained for comprehensive adjudication. Anil Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 365
As the Supreme Court observed, the DRT must examine all measures taken by the secured creditor collectively, promoting holistic justice. Anil Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 365
Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, aggrieved parties can challenge measures like asset possession or sale. The RDB Act empowers DRTs via Section 19 for recovery applications. There's no statutory bar on bundling reliefs like:- Recovery of dues- Possession of secured assets- Injunctions against further actions- Declarations on security interests
The judgment in Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. VS Small Industries Development Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014) emphasizes that the DRT can entertain multiple reliefs that are part of the same transaction or subject matter. This is crucial in SARFAESI proceedings where actions overlap. Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. VS Small Industries Development Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014)
In practice, parties file IAs seeking recovery, possession, and stays simultaneously. Courts uphold this unless it abuses process. Transcore VS Union of India - 2006 9 Supreme 425
IAs under DRT rules allow interim reliefs without restricting multiplicity. For instance, a bank might seek attachment, injunction, and recovery in one IA. Borrowers can counter with stays, set-asides, and damages claims if linked to recovery. The law supports this unless explicitly barred by statute. Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. VS Small Industries Development Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014)
A related case highlights procedural efficiency: In proceedings before DRT Guwahati, an Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the RDB Act encompassed multiple claims by the bank. Rohit Jain vs Indian Bank - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 877
While DRTs excel in recovery matters, boundaries exist. Civil courts' jurisdiction is barred only for recovery applications by banks or financial institutions. Independent claims like pure damages or declarations may go to civil courts. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. VS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF ALDRICH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. - 2017 7 Supreme 606
The Supreme Court clarified: Civil courts retain jurisdiction over suits for damages or declarations unrelated to recovery. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. VS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF ALDRICH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. - 2017 7 Supreme 606
In one instance, a plaintiff alleging fraud in loan documents filed both a civil suit and SARFAESI application before DRT. The court ruled the suit not maintainable as it overlapped with DRT cognizance under SARFAESI, stressing no simultaneous pursuit. The plaintiff cannot simultaneously pursue the present suit as well as the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.Utpala Mukherjee VS Aeromarine logistics pvt. Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(Del) 403
This reinforces channeling recovery-linked reliefs to DRT, allowing multiples there while reserving exclusives for civil forums.
Not all reliefs qualify. Key caveats:- Purely declaratory reliefs unrelated to recovery or security enforcement are typically outside DRT scope. Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. VS Small Industries Development Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014)- Multiplicity or abuse: Bundling unrelated claims may be rejected to prevent forum shopping.- Procedural compliance: Reliefs must follow DRT rules; vague or excessive prayers risk dismissal.- Independent suits for maintenance or property rights (e.g., matrimonial) belong elsewhere, as civil courts aren't devoid of jurisdiction for non-recovery matters. Adnan Chara VS Farhat Adnan
In a DRT-related writ, the court directed scrutiny of Presiding Officer conduct but upheld DRT's core processes. 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
Parties routinely consolidate reliefs in IAs for efficiency:- Banks: File for recovery, possession, and anti-encumbrance injunctions.- Borrowers: Seek stays, quashing of notices, and compensation in one IA.
Tips for Success:1. Clearly specify each relief and link to jurisdiction.2. Review precedents: Cite Anil Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 365 for collective examination.3. Avoid overlaps: Route non-recovery claims to civil courts to dodge bars. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. VS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF ALDRICH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. - 2017 7 Supreme 6064. Structure applications: Use affidavits and evidence for interconnected claims. Transcore VS Union of India - 2006 9 Supreme 425
In a bank recovery scenario, collateral visits and consent knowledge were factored into DRT proceedings, showing holistic review. Utpala Mukherjee VS Aeromarine logistics pvt. Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(Del) 403
Navigating DRT requires precision. While precedents favor flexibility, case-specific nuances matter. For tailored guidance, engage a specialist in banking and insolvency law.
Disclaimer: This post summarizes judicial trends and is for informational purposes only. Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on facts. Seek professional advice.
The expanse of the reliefs the defendant may claim in the suit proceeding can certainly go beyond mere adjustments of the amounts of claim, for which DRT would not have any power.” ... No.196 of 2017 has been filed by the 1st defendant bank for recovery of money. The facts for consideration in the suit are essential contentions before the DRT in O.A. No.196 of 2017. It is essentially laid down by special statue and also specific bar and exercise to DRT. ... The averments in the written statement are as ....
The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). ... having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date of such measures having taken for the reliefs indicated in sub-section (3) thereof. ... The Petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the DRT in both the cases. Meanwhile, the Respondent/Bank issued auction notice in pursuance of Rules 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (henceforth ‘the Rules of 200....
As soon as this notice is issued, any challenge to the notice comes within the domain of DRT. The reliefs claimed in the Suit are definitely comes within the jurisdiction of DRT and not the Civil Court. ... It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the Applicants that by asking multiple reliefs, the Plaintiffs by clever drafting want to get their Suit maintainable, which otherwise would not be maintainable. 31. ... The relief claimed in Prayer Clauses (i) to (v) are within the domain of #HL_ST....
However, till date, no such undertaking has been filed by the Applicants. In view of the submissions made by the Ld. ... Accordingly, an undertaking was filed in December, 2021 and the same was ordered to be taken on record vide order dated 24.12.2021. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time by the DRT-1. On 23.05.2022, the matter was further adjourned to 26.08.2022. According to learned advocate Mr. ... Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that fill date the Applicants have not deposited any amount despite the underta....
The mortgagor/private respondents herein filed S. A No. 65/2010 before the DRT challenging the auction proceedings. The present petitioner was put to notice. ... . : – This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dated 17-7-2013 (Annexure P-3) passed in S. A. ... On the one hand, he prayed for certain reliefs without making it clear about any ‘alternative relief’ and on the other hand he did not return the property and i....
JUDGMENT (Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2026) One of the reliefs ... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already received the certified copies of the documents and seeks some breathing time to approach the DRT. ... sought in this writ petition is to grant two weeks’ time to obtain the certified copies of MC No. 14329/2025 and other relevant documents in order to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). ... Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner intends to approach the DR....
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank recounts the facts before the petitioner filed the S.A. in the DRT. ... Counsel submits that the petitioner’s S.A. before the DRT challenging the SARFAESI action was dismissed on 17.07.2019 and the Appeal before the DRAT as well as the writ petition filed by the petitioner were also dismissed on 23.09.2019. ... By the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, which forms the subject matter in the present writ petition, the DRAT set aside the order passed by the DRT#HL_E....
In the case on hand, the opposite party no. 1/ Bank filed the O.A. before the DRT Guwahati. ... Indian Bank being the opposite party no. 1 herein, as applicant filed an application before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (North Eastern Region) (for short “DRT”) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short “the RDBFI Act, 1993 ... The opposite party no. 1/ Bank filed the original application before the DRT at Guwahat....
Such writ petition was filed by the Bar Association on 01.11.2022 and before such writ petition was filed two writ petitions were filed by two private parties namely Writ C No.7240 of 2022 [Shri. Chandan Rastogi v. ... It asked for a report regarding pendency of cases and disposal of matters and referred to the same in its orders passed thereafter as mentioned here in above. 9. ... In Writ No. 7725 of 2022, a short counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no. 1 and detailed counter affida....
The OP(DRT) is disposed of as above. ... If the petitioner has filed an application to get the certified copy of the impugned order the same shall be issued at the earliest. 3. ... Grant an interim stay of all further SARFAESI proceedings pursuant to SA no. 515/2025 of DRT1 Ernakulam, pending disposal of this Original Petition; (v) Grant such other reliefs ... JUDGMENT Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025 The prayers in the OP(DRT) are as follows; “(i) Call for the records relating to S.A.
Representative of the Bank had met the plaintiff at her residence on 8th May, 2017 and based on that, he submitted his collateral visit report dated 8th May, 2017, which shows that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the loan being availed by the borrowers and that she had consented for the same. Similar reliefs have been claimed by the plaintiff in the Securitization Application No. 21/2022 filed by the plaintiff, before the DRT. iv. The plaintiff along with the defendants No. 1 to 4 had approached the defendant No. 5 Bank, to take over the existing loan they had with the S....
In the proceedings of the arbitral meeting dated 22.03.2017, the arbitral Tribunal after perusing the pleadings and after hearing the advocates for the parties, formulated the following points of dispute for adjudication in this arbitration matter: (i) Whether all or any of the Claims raised by the Claimant in the Statement of Claim are outside the scope of the contract between the parties and hence not arbitrable? Whether the Claimant is entitled to interest on the amount awarded and if so, at what rate and for which period.? (ii) Whether all or any of the reliefs No. (i), (ii), (....
Hence, they are required to be considered in the same proceeding, even if at times such reliefs are not asked for also. It may be stated that, even when the decree is of ‘Restitution of Conjugal Rights’ under Section 9 of ‘The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955’ there is provision for award of maintenance under Order 21, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, till the decree is complied with. Those reliefs are incidental to the main relief of ‘dissolution of marriage’ and therefore, these reliefs are very much integral part of decree of ‘dissolution of marriage’. It is well recogniz....
It may be stated that, even when the decree is of Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 there is provision for award of maintenance under Order 21, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, till the decree is complied with. It is well recognized that the award of maintenance is the fall out of the decree of dissolution of marriage, hence even if at times, the Respondent has not asked for the maintenance, she is awarded that maintenance for herself and her children while passing the decree for dissolution of marriage. Those reliefs are incidental to the ....
i. To grant an order of injunction and ad-interim injunction restraining the second respondent from refunding the aforesaid amount of Rs.,130,29,441.00 together with accrued interest or any other amount lying with the second respondent to the first respondent. The substantial reliefs, prayed for, in the applications filed before the DRT were as follows : 14.1. SBI, apparently, was constrained to move the DRT, as the Recovery Officer had refused to grant reliefs, prayed for in the applications filed by it.
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
