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…!
In the complex world of banking and financial recovery, disputes over secured assets often arise. A common question arises: whether Securitisation applications are maintainable in DRT by third party claiming title? This issue pits the swift enforcement powers of banks under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) against claims of ownership by outsiders to the secured property.
If you're a potential claimant, borrower, or financial institution, understanding the Debt Recovery Tribunal's (DRT) limited scope is crucial. This post breaks down the legal position, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory provisions. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The SARFAESI Act empowers banks and financial institutions to enforce security interests without lengthy court interventions, such as taking possession or selling secured assets. The DRT's role, primarily under Sections 17 and 18, is narrow: it reviews whether the secured creditor's enforcement actions comply with the law. It does not extend to resolving ownership or title disputes.
As clarified in key rulings, the DRT’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between the bank/financial institution and the borrower or guarantor concerning the enforcement of security interest Mohan Lal VS Dwarka Prasad - 2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 277. Third parties lack standing to initiate or pursue such applications directly in DRT.
Generally, applications filed under the SARFAESI Act by third parties claiming title to the secured property are not maintainable in the DRT. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that DRT proceedings are not the forum for title adjudication.
For instance, in a similar matter, the third party has moved before the DRT for claiming charge over the property. It appears DRT has rejected the application filed by the third party on the ground that only Civil Court can entertain the above issue T. A. S. Rathnakumar VS Karanam Madhu - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1287. This underscores the consistent judicial stance.
Supreme Court and High Courts have solidified this position through landmark cases:
Additional precedents reinforce this:- Allowing third-party title claims in DRT would set at naught the very reason for the enactment of the DRT Act and establishment of the DRT and would lead to a waste of effort BHASIN TOBACCOS LTD. & ORS. vs GAMBRO NEXIM (INDIA) MEDICAL LTD. & ORS.-962_2016) BHASIN TOBACCOS LTD. & ORS. vs GAMBRO NEXIM (INDIA) MEDICAL LTD. & ORS.. If a third party proves possession under title, release may occur, but not via DRT adjudication.- In another case, applications by non-borrowers/third parties were dismissed by DRT as not maintainable B. Kamal VS Ramasamy and Co. - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 3458B. Kamal VS Ramasamy.
These rulings ensure DRT focuses on debt recovery efficiency, not tangential ownership battles.
Section 17 allows borrowers/guarantors to challenge enforcement measures, but third-party claims to title are not within the jurisdiction of the DRT Satnam Agri Products Ltd. VS Union of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014). Similarly, Section 18 appeals are confined to the same parties. DRT cannot entertain applications from outsiders seeking to challenge the validity of enforcement actions based on ownership claims Thirumurugan Properties, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. K. Ponnusamy VS State Bank of India - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1069.
The principle is clear: The DRT cannot issue directions to the bank to consider settlement proposals or ownership claims, emphasizing its limited jurisdiction Bhaskar Prabhudas Parekh VS Bank of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1480.
While third-party SARFAESI applications are typically barred:- Civil Courts' Role: Exclusive jurisdiction for title/ownership disputes. Third parties must file suits there to establish rights S. V. Subramaniam VS Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, rep. by its Director Mr. K. Viswanath - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 185.- Possession Claims: In execution proceedings, third parties may claim under CPC Order 21 Rules 97/99, but not in SARFAESI/DRT directly USHA JAIN VS MANMOHAN BAJAJ - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 80.- No Substitution for Civil Litigation: DRT is not a substitute for civil litigation regarding ownership or title Mohan Lal VS Dwarka Prasad - 2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 277.
From other contexts, like NCDRC proceedings, improper notices under SARFAESI were deemed deficient, but still routed outside DRT for title issues M/S ALLIED COMPUTERS INTERNATIONAL (ASIA) LTD vs ANDHRA BANK. In eviction or arbitration cases, third-party tactics claiming title were dismissed when improperly raised MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM ABID VS SAMEER OM - 2015 Supreme(All) 1171BEFESA AGUA, SAU CIF A 41290792, Avda Buhaire, 241018, Sevilla, Spain VS IVRCL Infrastructure and Projects - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1476.
If a bank auctions a property, challengers must file independent SARFAESI applications as borrowers, not third parties, within time limits B. Kamal VS Ramasamy and Co. - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 3458.
In summary, Securitisation applications by third parties claiming title are generally not maintainable in DRT. The Tribunal's mandate is debt recovery between creditors and debtors, with title disputes firmly in civil courts' domain. This preserves the SARFAESI Act's efficiency while upholding due process.
Key Takeaways:- DRT jurisdiction: Limited to borrowers/guarantors Mohan Lal VS Dwarka Prasad - 2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 277.- Title claims: Civil courts only S. V. Subramaniam VS Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, rep. by its Director Mr. K. Viswanath - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 185.- Judicial Consensus: Supreme Court & High Courts bar third-party applications USHA JAIN VS MANMOHAN BAJAJ - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 80Ashan Devi VS Phulwasi Devi - 2003 8 Supreme 285.- Action Step: Seek civil remedies swiftly.
Stay informed on evolving banking laws. For tailored advice, engage legal experts. Share your thoughts below!
#SARFAESI, #DRT, #BankingLaw
It is stated that the notice issued by the opponent under the Secutarization Act claiming amount of Rs.2,61,97,225/- in spite of overseas OCC limit of Rs.3.25 lakhs is bad and illegal and, therefore, issuance of such notice amounts to deficiency in service. ... They have made applications for various loans to the opponent bank. One of the loans which was applied and sanctioned is a term loan for the Vasai office amounting to Rs.5 crores. ... Second loan is a cash credit facility limit having limit of Rs.2.5 crores and third#H....
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. ... This application in E.A.No.19 of 2006 was filed by the claim petitioner/auction purchaser/third party under Order-XXI Rule-58 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to set aside the order of attachment made in I.A.No.878 of 1998 in O.S.No.378 of 1998 and to pass orders in favour of the claim ... Thus, in view of the principles laid by the Apex Court in Transcore’s case (1st supra), it is clear that whether to ap....
he may have been in possession as agent or trustee for another and this has to be enquired into; to that extent title may be a part of the inquiry; similarly, if the property attached is claimed by a third party who adduces evidence to show that he was possessed of the property under some kind of a title ... party as void; if the department finds that a property of the assessee is transferred by him to a third party with the intention to defraud the Revenue, it will h....
to title to the property were held to be maintainable, the same would set at naught the very reason for the enactment of the DRT Act and establishment of the DRT and would lead to a waste of effort on the part of DRT in adjudication, if ... is claimed by a third party who adduces evidence to show that he was possessed of the property under some kind of a title, the property will have to be released CS(COMM) No.962/2016 property o....
to title to the property were held to be maintainable, the same would set at naught the very reason for the enactment of the DRT Act and establishment of the DRT and would lead to a waste of effort on the part of DRT in adjudication, if ... is claimed by a third party who adduces evidence to show that he was possessed of the property under some kind of a title, the property will have to be released 2019:DHC:415 CS(COMM) N....
to title to the property were held to be maintainable, the same would set at naught the very reason for the enactment of the DRT Act and establishment of the DRT and would lead to a waste of effort on the part of DRT in adjudication, if ... is claimed by a third party who adduces evidence to show that he was possessed of the property under some kind of a title, the property will have to be released 2019:DHC:415 CS(COMM) N....
The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek return of the title deed in question. ... It is doubtful, whether in exercise of such right to retain the title deeds the mortgagee can bring the property for sale for recovery of some debt which is due from the mortgagor, in connection with a different transaction, which is not covered by the mortgage.” ... Both the afore applications were allowed by Exts.P6 and P7, by setting aside the e....
This results in two consequences viz., (i) out of frustration, the Banks agree for one time settlements, or (ii) third party rights get created by taking advantage of the situation. ... Lastly, in Ritu Gupta (supra), the loan was based upon mortgage of title deeds but the title deeds forming the basis of such mortgage themselves were questioned as being fraudulent. ... A borrower or a third party cannot be permitted to defeat or to render nugatory the provisions of the Act merely by a ....
Thirdly, when the petitioner bank filed the suit against respondents 2 and 3 or subsequently sought redressal before the DRT by way of original applications, the first respondent was not made a party. ... The first respondent is not made a party to the two original applications before DRT filed by the petitioner, and therefore, the orders of recovery passed by the DRT are not binding on the first respondent and the petitioner is not entitled to bring the plots owned b....
The sole question which falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the civil suit between the parties seeking relief of declaration can only be decided by the civil Court or the same can also be adjudicated by the DRT under the provisions of DRT/SARFASI Act. ... It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have cleverly drafted the plaint and have obtained only a relief of declaration, which in itself is not maintainable. ... We find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff inasmuc....
In one of similar matter the third party has moved before the DRT for claiming charge over the property. It appears DRT has rejected the application filed by the third party on the ground that only Civil Court can entertain the above issue.
The applications were dismissed by DRT as not maintainable. The borrowers filed another application in I.A.No.280 of 2010 for the purpose of impleading the auction purchasers. Thereafter S.A.No.101 of 2009 was dismissed as infructuous.
The borrowers filed another application in I.A.No.280 of 2010 for the purpose of impleading the auction purchasers. Thereafter S.A.No.101 of 2009 was dismissed as infructuous. The applications were dismissed by DRT as not maintainable.
This is a case which shows all possible tactics a tenant/defendant can use. They have expressed their helplessness yet granted adjournment after adjournment. Nobody should take Courts for a ride and Court cannot remain moot spectator to abuse of process of Court. Even after defence evidence was over, third party appeared claiming title.
It is further stated that the Applications are also not maintainable, as the Third Respondent is not a party to the Memorandum of Understanding [MoU], under which the Applicants are presently claiming the reliefs. 8. It is further stated that no fraud has been alleged in the Petition and as a matter of fact, no fraud has been practiced by the Respondents 1 & 2.
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
