Important Supreme Court Judgments on DRT SARFAESI Act, 2002/ Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993

1	G. VIKRAM KUMAR Vs STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 624 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR /s. 17 to approach the drt – In view of the availability of the alternative statutory remedy available by way of proceedings/appeal u/s. 17, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition u/Art. 226 in which the e- auction notice was under challenge – Moreover, the transaction A B C D E F G H 625 in favour of the respondent no. 1 with respect to Flat no.6401 was already held to be void by the drt – If the respondent no. 1 would have approached the drt against the e–auction notice he would have been non-suited in view of the earlier order passed by the drt Date of decision : 02-05-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3152/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
2	STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs M/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 773 Judge Name: S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA concerned with the SARFAESI Act as such. The matter had travelled to the High Court from proceedings under the drt Act. There was, thus, no occasion for the High Court to pronounce on the validity of section 16-B of the HPGST Act based on what was held by its coordinate Bench in M/s A.J “guarantors”, hereafter). The loan account of the borrower became irregular. A recovery suit was instituted by PNB against the borrower and the guarantors for Rs. 42.29 lacs. Upon introduction of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity “ drt Act”, hereafter Date of decision : 28-04-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8980/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
3	PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs FRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 858 Judge Name: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,ARAVIND KUMAR parties – Financial defaults were committed by the respondent – Demand notice u/s. 13 of the SARFAESI Act was issued by appellant- bank – Demand remained unmet – Appellant declared that it had taken possession of the suit property – Respondent filed securitisation application before the drt and determination of the rights of the parties – On appeal, held: It is settled that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in respect of matters which a drt or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine in respect of any action A B C D E F G H 859 taken “or to be taken in pursuance Date of decision : 18-04-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2924/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
4	M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. Vs NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18 Judge Name: SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH difficulty being faced by parties on account of non-appointment of members in drts and DRATs. M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. v. NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.] A B C D E F G H 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. He requested that the matters before drt and availability of statutory remedies under the drt Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will Date of decision : 17-04-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
5	AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs C. NATARAJAN & ANR – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 1067 Judge Name: S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA the drt for the extension of time to deposit the balance amount – drt directed the Authorized officer to maintain status quo – In appeal, the DRAT permitted the Authorized Officer to proceed with fresh auction without, however, vacating the order of status quo passed earlier – Writ petition by by 23rd October, 2017, as per the terms of rule 9(4). On facts, the contesting respondent was arranging for funds when he received the summons from the drt on 10th October, 2017. It is, therefore, clear that at least till that date, the contesting respondent was lacking in financial resources Date of decision : 10-04-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2545/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
6	AJAY KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM GOENKA Vs TOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 986 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,J.B. PARDIWALA alteration in the priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The IBC provides for designating the NCLT and the Debts Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons Date of decision : 15-03-2023 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/172/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
7	K. SREEDHAR Vs M/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD & ORS. – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 579 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,M.M. SUNDRESH property purchased by the appellant-auction purchaser – drt confirmed the sale in favour of the appellant – In writ petition, the High Court set aside the e–auction and sale certificate – On appeal, held: High Court ought not to have entertained Writ Petition as there was a remedy of appeal before the DRAT – By entertaining the writ petition straightway under Art. 226/227 challenging the order passed by the drt , the High Court allowed/permitted the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – There was no breach of r. 8(1 Date of decision : 05-01-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7402/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
8	SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR Vs PRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 553 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA date of the application. That the “debt” means any liability inclusive of interest. [Para 13][569-D-F] 1.2 An appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is permissible against the order passed by the drt under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Under Section 17, the scope of enquiry is limited to the steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets. Therefore, whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the drt will be the ‘debt due Date of decision : 05-01-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8969/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
9	BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. Vs VCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. – [2022] 17 S.C.R. 567 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,VIKRAM NATH and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB) – s. 19 – The appellant bank sanctioned a term loan to the respondent company, however, respondent failed to make the payment – Appellant filed an application for recovery of the amounts before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, ( drt ) – Respondent entered appearance to defend the proceedings, but in addition also filed a Civil Suit in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge on the finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction as the same exclusively vested with the drt – However, on appeal the Division Bench of the High court restored the Date of decision : 10-11-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8972/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
10	BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 239 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI – Real Estate Project-Amrapali Group of companies – Applicant has filed I.A challenging the proceedings/order passed by drt -III – Applicant had entered into agreement with the Amrapali Group for developing a colony on partnership basis – As per the agreement an entitlement of 40% of the share in selling – The applicant was informed that his presence was required before the drt -III, New Delhi to explain the details with regard to the project in pursuance of the writ petition filed against Amrapali Group – drt – III by its order, directed the registry to issue a request letter which is Date of decision : 07-11-2022 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued

11	THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS AND BODY BUILDING COMPANY LIMITED – [2022] 14 S.C.R. 985 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the drt Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) “5. In our opinion, the order Date of decision : 14-10-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7170/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
12	BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS & ANR Vs PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 437 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI borrower and secured creditor and/or between any other third party and aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings before drt u/s. 17 – On facts, the High Court did not commit any error in [2022] 13 S.C.R. 437 437 A B C D E F G H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022 Date of decision : 26-09-2022 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/16013/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
13	THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Vs GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 840 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the drt Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) “5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Date of decision : 20-09-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4956/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
14	PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs MR. VIJAY SITARAM DANDNAIK & ANR. – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 380 Judge Name: S. ABDUL NAZEER,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN the Corporate Debtor – Bank also filed application before drt for issue of certificate of recovery, wherein by order dated 01.11.2016, the drt directed the corporate debtor and others including respondent no. 1 to jointly and severally pay to the Bank – In a parallel proceeding, the High Court Date of decision : 30-08-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2277/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
15	M/S. R.K. INDUSTRIES (UNIT-II) LLP Vs M/S. H.R. COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHER – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 667 Judge Name: N.V. RAMANA,J.K. MAHESHWARI,HIMA KOHLI Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Companies Act, 2013. These statutes provide for creation of multiple fora such as Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) and National Date of decision : 26-08-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7722/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
16	ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 1112 Judge Name: INDIRA BANERJEE,J.K. MAHESHWARI settlement agreement on the basis of which such interest had been claimed. (viii) The High Court had, by its aforesaid order dated 19.10.2018, directed drt to determine the interest payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant. Since no determination has been done by the drt , the interest Date of decision : 01-08-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/84/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
17	M/S. R.S. INFRA-TRANSMISSION LTD. Vs SAURININDUBHAI PATEL AND ORS. – [2022] 6 S.C.R. 930 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA referred to as the “Bank”) filed an O.A. bearing No. 424 of 1999 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “ drt ”) on 25.05.2006 for recovery of debt and enforcement of security against the original respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (original borrowers). Recovery Certificate Date of decision : 11-07-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3469/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
18	STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs DR. VIJAY MALLYA – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 384 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA not disputed that such orders were passed restraining the concerned respondents including Respondent No.3 and that the orders were passed in proceedings arising from O.A. No.766 of 2013 before drt Bengaluru. The present proceedings before this court have also arisen from the very same O.A. No Date of decision : 11-07-2022 | Case Number : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/421/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
19	KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs A. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR. – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 1072 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,A.S. BOPANNA (“ drt ” for short) for issuance of Debt Recovery Certificates in terms of the said compromise entered into between the parties. The said applications came to be allowed by the drt vide orders dated 31st March, 2017 and 30th June, 2017, and separate Recovery Certificates dated 7th June, 2017 and Date of decision : 30-05-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/689/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
20	KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs NARENDRA JAYANTILAL TRIVEDI & ANR. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 360 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA not open for the Division Bench to pass an order permitting the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal and also make observations that any of the observations made by the drt as well as by Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition shall be ignored and/or shall not be taken Date of decision : 13-05-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4026/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

21	STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs KRISHIDHAN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1155 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,SURYA KANT same debt; one for the purpose of the drt and another for the purpose of adjudication under the IBC. Finally, the NCLAT held that recourse to Section 18 of the Limitation Act was not available to the appellant. 7. In the present appeal, the appellant has appeared through Mr Niranjan Reddy, senior counsel, while Mr Shyam Divan, senior counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 7 2020 SCC Online NCLAT 417 (“V Padmakumar”) 8 “Limitation Act” 9 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 972 of 2020 10 “NCLAT” 11 “ drt ” A B C D E F G H 1159 8. The NCLT placed reliance on the Date of decision : 18-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/910/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
22	SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS Vs MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 254 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA , replied by Bank – However, thereafter the Recovery Officer dismissed the application and forfeited 10% of the amount deposited– Appeal filed by respondent no.1, dismissed by drt – Appeal before DRAT, no interim relief granted – Respondent-Bank herein sought to put the property to auction considering the final decision of DRAT – Order passed by drt confirming the order passed by the Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount deposited by the auction purchaser was yet to be decided by DRAT – Main appeal was yet to be decided by DRAT on merits – High Court made the proceedings before Date of decision : 16-02-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1302/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
23	BANK OF BARODA Vs M/S KARWA TRADING COMPANY & ANR. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 1100 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act before drt – drt passed interim order directing release / handover of possession of the mortgaged property to the borrower on deposit of Rs.48.65 lakhs – Bank filed appeal before DRAT which was dismissed – Single Judge of High Court set aside the orders passed by drt & DRAT on ground that the orders were in contravention of s.13(8) of SARFAESI Act – Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge and directed the bank to release the secured property (residential house) on the borrower depositing a further sum of Rs.17 lakhs to the bank and Date of decision : 10-02-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/363/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
24	DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. Vs ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 291 Judge Name: HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN up petition in the instant case solely on the ground that there is no other person willing to substitute the original creditor in terms of Rule 101. Here, due to the lack of advertisement of the winding petitions, it appears that the secured creditors of KOFL were constrained to approach the drt . ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] A B C D E F G H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R. drt to secure its interest. Based on this, vide order dated 13.12.2013, the drt had directed that the amount to be returned to KOFL be attached so that the banks have an Date of decision : 17-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5766/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
25	ARCE POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/S. ALPHINE PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1059 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,SANJIV KHANNA,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI D E F G H 1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. petition before drt challenging the enforcement proceedings in respect of the subject property including all steps taken right from issue of notice under s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act – drt dismissed borrower’s application – Borrower Date of decision : 03-12-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7372/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
26	ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED Vs UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 532 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA questions required to be dealt with by the drt in the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act – Assignee has already initiated the proceedings u/s.13 which can be challenged by the appellant – Thus, the High Court justified in rejecting plaint/dismissing the suit in view of bar u/s.34 of the and/or whether any amount is due and payable by the plaintiff, are all questions which are required to be dealt ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED v. UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. A B C D E F G H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. with and considered by the drt in Date of decision : 26-11-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6669/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
27	XLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS – [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1096 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA recover the decretal amount in accordance with provisions of s.25 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act – Appeal No.1/2020 pending consideration by Debts Recovery Tribunal ( drt ), Jaipur – According to respondent no.1 approximately a sum of Rs.29 crores was due and payable by appellant no.1. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 herein. 5. It is not in dispute that Appeal No.1/2020 is pending consideration by the Debts Recovery Tribunal ( drt ), Jaipur. However, at the same time, according to respondent no.1 herein approximately a sum of Rs.29 Date of decision : 27-10-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6518/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
28	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs ANKITA SINHA & ORS. – [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,HRISHIKESH ROY,C.T. RAVIKUMAR submission thus is that the Tribunal does not have any inherent powers. 10.2 Similarly, Justice S.H. Kapadia (as his Lordship then was) in Transcore Vs. Union of India3, opined on behalf of a Division Bench that, “ 67. …The drt is a tribunal, it is the creature of the statute, it has no inherent Date of decision : 07-10-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12122/2018 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Legal issue answered
29	S. KARTHIK & ORS. Vs N. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN & ORS. – [2021] 13 S.C.R. 1096 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,B.V. NAGARATHNA application of Appellants and Respondent No. 2 to 4, drt vide order dated 27.02. 2012 granted interim stay for 30 days on the sale subject to the deposit of the 50% of outstanding amount – On 28.03.2012 one of the mortgaged properties was sold by the Bank through a private treaty for Rs. 12.25 Crores entitled – drt set aside the Second Sale Notice and the consequent sale of mortgaged [2021] 13 S.C.R.1096 1096 A B C D E F G H 1097 properties – Directed Respondent-Bank to refund the amount paid by auction purchaser along with 10% Interest and refund of surplus sum of Rs. 4.48 Crores Date of decision : 23-09-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5920/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
30	HEMRAJ RATNAKAR SALIAN Vs HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 529 Judge Name: S. ABDUL NAZEER,KRISHNA MURARI provides for the right of appeal to any person including the borrower to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal ( drt ). Section 17 has been amended by Act No. 44 of 2016 providing for challenging the A B C D E F G H 533 measures to recover secured debts (for short, “the Amendment”). Under the tenant claiming under the borrower. In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra2 this Court has held that drt can not only set aside the action of the secured creditor but even restore the status quo ante. Therefore, an alternative remedy was available to the appellant to challenge the Date of decision : 17-08-2021 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/843/2021 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed

31	SUMAN CHADHA & ANR. Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 370 Judge Name: INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Delhi (‘ drt -III’ for short), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the drt -III declined to grant any interim relief against the physical possession of the aforesaid properties. (iv) The petitioners filed an appeal but could not deposit Rs. 7 crores being 25% of the amount demanded in the notice under Section 13(2). Eventually the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.03.2015. (v) However, on 01st April, 2015, the petitioners secured a conditional order of stay from drt -III, New Delhi in S.A. No. 367/ 2014 whereby the petitioners were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 Date of decision : 09-08-2021 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/28592/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
32	DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) Vs C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 1061 Judge Name: INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN , in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years –Recovery order by the drt and the recovery certificate issued in favour of the Bank in 2017 gave a fresh cause of action to the Bank to initiate a petition u/s. 7 – Offer of one time settlement of a filed an application in the NCLT, for permission to place additional documents on record including the final judgment and order/decree dated 27.3.2017 and the Recovery Certificate dated 25.5.2017, enabling the Appellant Bank to recover Rs.52 crores odd. The judgment and order/decree of the drt and Date of decision : 04-08-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1650/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
33	LALIT KUMAR JAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 1075 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,S. RAVINDRA BHAT against the personal guarantor in a court or tribunal and a resolution process or liquidation is initiated against the corporate debtor. Thus if A, an individual is the subject of a resolution process before the drt and he has furnished a personal guarantee for a debt owed by a company B, in the event a resolution process is initiated against B in an NCLT, the provision results in transferring the proceedings going on against A in the drt to NCLT. [Para 95][1156-C-F] 6. The non-obstante provision under Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over other prevailing enactments. This is Date of decision : 21-05-2021 | Case Number : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/245/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
34	ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs BISHAL JAISWAL & ANR. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 524 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,HRISHIKESH ROY applicable to the proceedings under the Code, as far as may be applicable. For, Section 238A predicates that the provisions of Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLAT, the drt or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Date of decision : 15-04-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/323/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
35	LAXMI PAT SURANA Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. – [2021] 2 S.C.R. 924 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,KRISHNA MURARI . For, Section 238A predicates that the provisions of Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLAT, the drt or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. After enactment of Section 238A of the Code on and acknowledged the debt time and again, lastly on 8.12.2018 and thus the application filed on 13.2.2019 was within limitation. 6 for short, “the 1993 Act” 7 for short, “ drt ” 8 for short, “the CIRP” 9 for short, the “Adjudicating Authority” or “NCLT”, as the case may be. LAXMI PAT SURANA v Date of decision : 26-03-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2734/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
36	SESH NATH SINGH & ANR. Vs BAIDYABATI SHEORAPHULI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 806 Judge Name: INDIRA BANERJEE,HEMANT GUPTA be civil proceedings in a Court – Moreover, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act under s.13(4) are appealable to the drt under s.18 of the SARFAESI Act – Argument that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would not qualify for exclusion under s.14 of the Limitation Act, because those proceedings and bankruptcy would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also ease business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. The IBC seeks to designate the NCLT and drt as the Adjudicating Authorities for resolution of Date of decision : 22-03-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9198/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
37	KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK PVT. LIMITED Vs AMBUJ A. KASLIWAL & ORS. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 1001 Judge Name: S.A. BOBDE,A.S. BOPANNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN be permissible, but not entire waiver – When further amount is due and payable in discharge of decree/recovery certificate issued by drt , the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion against the mandatory requirement of the projected the case to indicate that the recovery certificate ordered by the drt is for the sum of Rs.145 Crores with interest at 9% per annum and the amount realised by the Bank from the compensation amount payable to respondent No.3 is itself a sum of Rs.152,81,07,159/- and as such there is Date of decision : 16-02-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/538/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
38	M/S. RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. Vs M/S HOTEL POONJA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. – [2021] 1 S.C.R. 495 Judge Name: INDIRA BANERJEE,SANJIV KHANNA for recovery of dues – A settlement was reached between the Assignor Bank and the corporate debtor – Accordingly, drt issued a Recovery Certificate on 27.03.2003 – Corporate debtor again failed to comply with the settlement – Thereafter, an agreement between the Assignor Bank and the appellant was entered into, the appellant was substituted as applicant in place of the Assignor Bank in drt and an amended Recovery Certificate was issued on 13.12.2012 – On 27.07.2018, the appellant filed application u/s. 7 of the IBC against the corporate debtor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Date of decision : 21-01-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4221/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
39	ACTION ISPAT AND POWER PVT. LTD. Vs SHYAM METALICS AND ENERGY LTD. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 783 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,K.M. JOSEPH,KRISHNA MURARI ), Debts Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and insolvency is dealt with under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the Provincial markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also improve Ease of Doing Business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating NCLT and drt as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms and Date of decision : 15-12-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4041/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
40	C. BRIGHT Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 997 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,AJAY RASTOGI,HEMANT GUPTA circumstances without examining the context and scheme of the statute may not serve the purpose of the statute. [Para 7] [1004-B-D] 2. The drt Act was first enacted to streamline the recovery of public dues but the proceedings under the said Act have not given desirous results. Therefore, the Act in this Court4. This Court observed that when Civil Courts failed to expeditiously decide suits filed by the banks, the drt Act was enacted, however it did not provide for assignment of debts to Securitisation companies. The Act which was enacted thereafter in 2002 sought to further empower the banks Date of decision : 05-11-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3441/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

41	DR. VIJAY MALLYA Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 658 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,ASHOK BHUSHAN features. (A) In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners (‘banks’, for short) before drt , Bengaluru seeking recovery of Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine and Paise Thirty Two only), an oral undertaking was given on 26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they would not alienate or dispose of their properties. One of the prayers made before drt , Bengaluru was:- “(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US$ 75 million,…” (B) When Date of decision : 31-08-2020 | Case Number : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)/2175/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
42	BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJAR Vs VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 368 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI , advances and facilities, its account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 08.07.2011 – Recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders u/s.19 of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 before the drt was started – On or about proceedings were pending before drt , on or about 21.03.2018, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the Code, in Form 1 as provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 201614, for initiation of CIRP in Date of decision : 14-08-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6347/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
43	M/S. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 626 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI with drt – Respondent no. 3-borrower had availed of financial credit from the bank, for which the respondent no. 2-guarantor had offered its immovable property by way of mortgage to the Bank – The borrower committed default – The bank filed O.A. No. 11/2008 before the drt – Thereafter, took symbolic possession of the secured assets – The guarantor filed a petition challenging the possession notice by the bank, which came to be rejected by the drt – The secured assets were auctioned and a sale certificate in respect of the secured assets was issued to the appellant – Before the auction Date of decision : 24-04-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2373/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
44	SHYAM SAHNI Vs ARJUN PRAKASH AND OTHERS – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 117 Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA .297 of 2011 before drt , New Delhi and the same was decreed by drt and SHYAM SAHNI v. ARJUN PRAKASH AND ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] A B C D E F G H 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. RC No.172/2012 was issued by the Bank of India and the recovery proceedings are still going on jurisdiction of the drt for recovery of the Bank SHYAM SAHNI v. ARJUN PRAKASH AND ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] A B C D E F G H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. dues when the Bank of India is not made a party to the suit. It was further submitted that there is already an order of status Date of decision : 19-03-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2210/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
45	BANK OF BARODA Vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. – [2020] 5 S.C.R. 492 Judge Name: DEEPAK GUPTA,ANIRUDDHA BOSE petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) for recovery of US $1,400,000. Those proceedings are being contested by the Bank of Baroda and it appears that the proceedings before the drt are still pending and we make it clear that anything said by us in this appeal will not affect those Date of decision : 17-03-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/17/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
46	UCO BANK Vs NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. – [2020] 4 S.C.R. 692 Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,HRISHIKESH ROY the parties to adduce evidence. Further in respect of post take over period a Suit No.4489/96 was filed which was transferred to drt and registered as O.A.No.1114/2000 which has remained pending as respondent No.2 had proceeded to BIFR. In that circumstance if the appellant herein had chosen to the drt , Mumbai and is stated to be adjourned sine die. The said proceedings shall now stand revived. In the said recovery proceedings in R.C.No.269/2004 the appellant is permitted to bring on record the respondents. The respondents are reserved the liberty of putting forth their A B C D E Date of decision : 05-03-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2046/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
47	English           ಕನ್ನಡ – Kannada Disclaimer K. VIRUPAKSHA & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1020 Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,S. ABDUL NAZEER,A.S. BOPANNA Tribunal ( drt ) for delay – Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dismissed appeal– Respondent no.2 filed complaint u/s.200, CrPC against appellants who were working as Deputy General Managers in the Bank (accused no.1) alleging connivance with auction purchaser which caused wrongful loss to him – FIR registered of classifying the account as NPA or in the manner in which the property was valued/auctioned, the drt is vested with power to set aside such auction at the stage after the secured creditor invokes power u/s.13 – Though in the instant case the application filed by Complainant before drt and Date of decision : 03-03-2020 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/377/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
48	English           தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer CANARA BANK Vs P. SELATHAL AND ORS. ETC.ETC. – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 944 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,INDIRA BANERJEE,M.R. SHAH created a equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds – The original borrower failed to repay the loan amount – The drt proceeded ex- parte against the Guarnator and directed the principal borrower, its partners and the Guarantor pay the sum of the term loan with interest – The Guarantor filed an I.A. in 2008 against the order of the drt , for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 27.8.2003, however, the same was dismissed – After seven years from the date of the decree dated 27.8.2003 passed by the drt , the respondents-plaintiffs filed two suits to declare the order dated 27.8.2003 as Date of decision : 28-02-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1863/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
49	STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs MSTC LIMITED – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 444 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN respondent- Company, a sum of Rs. 222,51,00,000/- was owed by the respondent – The said I.A. was allowed by drt – The respondent filed an appeal against the said order before the DRAT – While pending appeal, a review application was filed by the respondent before the drt – Thereafter, the appeal filed earlier was withdrawn – Meanwhile, an application was filed to condone a delay of 28 days in filing the review petition before the drt – Application was dismissed by the drt – Writ Petition – The High Court held that no appeal would be maintainable against the dismissal of the review petition Date of decision : 21-01-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/501/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
50	THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.v. BABULAL LADE & ORS. Vs BABULAL LADE & ORS. – [2019] 14 S.C.R. 485 Judge Name: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,KRISHNA MURARI follows: “126. While enacting the drt Act and the Securitisation Act, Parliament was aware of the law laid down by this Court wherein priority of the State dues was recognized. If Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of banks, financial institutions, or other secured creditors on the Date of decision : 04-12-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/232/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

51	M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS – [2019] 17 S.C.R. 559 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN jurisdiction and powers of NCLT – In contrast, Sub-sections (4) and (5) of s.60 of IBC, 2016 give an indication respectively about the powers and jurisdiction of the NCLT – Sub-section (4) of s.60 of IBC, 2016 states that the NCLT will have all the powers of the drt as contemplated under Part III of the Code for the purposes of Sub- section (2) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.60. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: ss.60, 179 – Under s.179 (1), it is the drt which is the Adjudicating Authority in relation to insolvency matters of individuals and firms – This is in contrast to s Date of decision : 03-12-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9170/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
52	English           தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer IDBI BANK LIMITED THROUGH DGM (LEGAL) Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF COMPANIES & ANR. – [2019] 15 S.C.R. 549 Judge Name: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,AJAY RASTOGI the interest of all creditors – Clearly, the submission for the Petitioner that the winding up petition deserves to be dismissed as all creditors of KOFL have been satisfied is belied by the existence of the proceedings before the drt – The records showed that the settlement of dues was only winding up petitions, it appears that the secured creditors of KOFL were constrained to approach the drt for recovery of their dues by filing O.A. Further, upon learning of the decision of the Company Judge dismissing the winding up petition, one of the secured IDBI BANK LTD. THR. DGM(LEGAL) v Date of decision : 17-10-2019 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/33825/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
53	DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs A. J. AGROCHEM – [2019] 12 S.C.R. 830 Judge Name: ARUN MISHRA,M.R. SHAH,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI creation of multiple fora such as Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and insolvency. Business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating NCLT and drt as the adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals, respectively, for resolution of insolvency, liquidation and Date of decision : 04-10-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5120/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
54	THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK Vs D. VISALAKSHI AND ANR. – [2019] 13 S.C.R. 177 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI adverting to the statement of objects and reasons of the 2002 Act, opined that the secured creditor is not required to obtain a decree from a competent Court/ drt before being entitled to take steps for the purpose of enforcement of recovery in relation to the secured THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK v Date of decision : 23-09-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6295/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
55	BAJARANG SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. – [2019] 12 S.C.R. 352 Judge Name: N.V. RAMANA,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,INDIRA BANERJEE Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ drt ”). In Harshad Govardhan Case (supra) this Court held that the right of appeal is available to the tenant claiming under a borrower, however the right of re-possession does not exist with the tenant. However, in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 782, this Court held that the drt can, not only set aside the action of the secured creditor, but even restore the status quo ante. We do not intend to express any view on this issue since it is not relevant for the disposal of this Date of decision : 11-09-2019 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1371/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
56	M/S KUT ENERGY PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, LARGE CORPORATE BRANCH, LUDHIANA & ORS. – [2019] 10 S.C.R. 736 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,VINEET SARAN satisfied on appropriation of sale proceeds of secured assets. The lead Bank has already filed suit for the recovery of Rs.129.47 crores, which is pending adjudication before the drt . While the borrower/guarantors have a right to contest the bank’s claim before the drt , it is highly premature and decretal amount. However, in the event of dismissal of such suit, with a finding that the borrower or the guarantors are no longer under any liability, the amount so deposited by them can be refunded to them. Since all these issues are yet to be adjudicated by the drt , we are of the view that Date of decision : 20-08-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6016/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
57	SHAKEENA & ANR. Vs BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 11 S.C.R. 341 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI of redemption – Loan taken by appellants from respondent Bank – In view of default in discharging the loan by appellants, respondent Bank exercised its power under s.13(4) and took over constructive possession of mortgaged property – Appellant filed applications before drt which, however, were and closed both the loan accounts – On 6.1.2006, respondent bank issued a sale certificate in favour of respondent no.3 – Appellant filed applications for restoration of the main proceedings before drt which was dismissed – Appellants thereafter forwarded demand drafts in the name of Authorised Date of decision : 20-08-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8097/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
58	BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 9 S.C.R. 289 Judge Name: ARUN MISHRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT . Various applications are being filed one after the other by the encumbered holders with respect to several properties that they have the charge over the said property. [Para 129] [570-A-E] 4.14 That apart, several attached properties have been put to sale by drt under the orders of this Court. In Date of decision : 23-07-2019 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed not complying condition order | Direction Issue : Directions issued
59	MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR. Vs AXIS BANK LTD. & ANR. – [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1058 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI , 2017, on the finding that there was no bar from entertaining civil suit(s) in respect of any other matter which is outside the scope of matters required to be determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “ drt ”) constituted under 2002 Act. The learned Single Judge held that the facts of the dictum in the concerned judgment on the principle underlying the exposition in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation7 to the effect that the drt and also the appellate authority cannot pass a decree nor it is open to it to enter upon Date of decision : 01-07-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5126/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
60	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NARENDRA KUMAR Vs CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK & ORS. – [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1 Judge Name: S.A. BOBDE,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,INDIRA BANERJEE pension – Interruption in service – Appellant working as law officer in respondent-bank (parent department) went on deputation to the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) – During the period of deputation, he applied for the post of Presiding Officer at drt – Respondent- bank forwarded ‘No Objection but bank sent no response to his letter – drt released the appellant and then he took over charge as Presiding officer – After eleven months, respondent-bank asked the appellant to resign from the service of bank – After some communications, appellant tendered his resignation which was accepted by Date of decision : 30-04-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4489/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

61	NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 5 S.C.R. 313 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,VINEET SARAN for law and justice, Leader of Opposition, etc. making wild, baseless, contemptuous allegations against the Constitutional functionaries of this Court. (viii) That a Resolution dated 19th May, 2014 was passed by all three learned Presiding Officers of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai ( drt . Rohini and alleged clients in the open Court Hall of drt I, II, III and that to the extent that the smooth functioning of the Tribunal has come to halt and justice delivery system has got obstructed. They have willingly and intentionally created this scenario in the open court with ulterior motive Date of decision : 12-03-2019 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/191/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
62	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CEMENT WORKERS’ MANDAL Vs GLOBAL CEMENTS LTD. (HMP CEMENTS LTD.) & ORS – [2019] 3 S.C.R. 357 Judge Name: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,DINESH MAHESHWARI that Respondent No.2 – Indian Bank had given business loan to Respondent No.1- Company, which they failed to repay to the Indian Bank. The Indian Bank (R-2), therefore, filed a claim petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “the drt ) at Calcutta against Respondent No.1-Company for recovery of their unpaid loan amount with interest. 9. By order dated 04.03.2003, the drt allowed the claim petition and ordered for sale of the properties of Respondent No.1-Company after giving due publicity. The drt also appointed one Receiver to take appropriate steps in this regard. The Date of decision : 14-02-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5360/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
63	English           தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer SWARAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. – [2019] 1 S.C.R. 682 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA , Advs.), Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present case involves the right of a secured creditor to file a winding up petition after such secured creditor has obtained a decree from the Debts Recovery Tribunal [“ drt creditor has obtained an order from the drt , and a recovery certificate has been issued thereupon, such secured creditor cannot file a winding up petition as the Recovery of Debts Act is a special Act which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the drt . Also, a secured creditor can file a winding up Date of decision : 29-01-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1291/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
64	M/S HINDON FORGE PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GHAZIABAD & ANR. – [2018] 11 S.C.R. 1019 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA Section 13(4) have been taken so as to enable the borrower to approach drt and in such an eventuality, the drt shall have a jurisdiction to pass any order/interim order, may be subject to conditions, on the application under Section 17(1) of the Act. (f) The scheme of relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules shows that the Bank/FIs have been conferred with powers to take physical (actual) possession of the secured assets without interference of the Court and the only remedy open to the borrower is to approach drt challenging such an action/measure and seeking appropriate relief Date of decision : 01-11-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10873/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
65	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATA KRISHAMRAJU Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2018] 11 S.C.R. 39 Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN , Lucknow Bench stays the release of petitioner, having regard to the enhanced age of retirement in the writ petition filed by him. 09.12.2016 The Bombay High Court dismissed WP(L) No. 3299/2016 filed by Vasant Narayan Lothey Patel, Presiding Officer, drt III, Mumbai, whereby the said officer proceedings before the courts concerned. 14.11.2017 This Court allowed all six transfer petitions (TP(C) Nos. 1315-1320/2017) and also passed an interim order reinstating Mohd. Zafar Imam as Presiding Officer, drt II, Mumbai. 26.12.2019 The petitioner will be completing the age of 65 years Date of decision : 07-09-2018 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/732/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
66	INDIAN BANK & ANR. Vs K PAPPIREDDIYAR & ANR. – [2018] 6 S.C.R. 611 Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR agricultural in nature. The drt rejected the objection of the debtor that the land was agricultural. In appeal, the DRAT reversed that finding. Apart from referring to the position in law, the impugned judgment of the High Court contains no discussion of the material which was relied upon by the Tribunal ( drt -III) at Chennai and renumbered as T.A. No. 93 of 2007. On 11 June 2010, drt -III allowed the claim of the Bank in the amount of Rs. 31,00,238/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum. A recovery certificate was issued on 10 February 2011in the amount of Rs. 74,31,233.14/-. On 2 Date of decision : 20-07-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6641/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
67	THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs M/S ALLWYN ALLOYS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. – [2018] 4 S.C.R. 477 Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.34 – Equitable mortgage created by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the subject flat in favour of appellant-bank – Failure to repay the loan amount – Claim for title over the subject flat by respondent no.5 and 6 (writ petitioners) – drt and DRAT of civil suit – For, no civil court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a drt or DRAT is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction can be granted by any Court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken Date of decision : 17-05-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5248/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
68	CANARA BANK Vs N. G. SUBBARAYA SETTY & ANR. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 884 Judge Name: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,R.F. NARIMAN son, stood as a guarantor for repayment of the said facility. As respondent No.1 defaulted in repayment of a sum of Rs.53,49,970.22, the petitioner bank filed O.A. No. 440 of 2002 before the drt Bangalore, against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1, in order to repay the dues of the bank jurisdiction to entertain the suits, despite the pendency of drt proceedings. The bank’s suit came to be dismissed. The ultimate order passed in the two suits is as follows: “O.S. 2832/2004 is hereby decreed in part, granting a relief in favour of the plaintiff as against the 1st defendant/bank Date of decision : 20-04-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4233/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
69	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer P. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM Vs P. VIJAYAKUMAR & ANR. – [2018] 6 S.C.R. 667 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,R. BANUMATHI Bank (later Federal Bank Ltd.) and the bank had initiated recovery proceedings, namely, O.S. No.40 of 1996 before 3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai which was later transferred to drt , Coimbatore and renumbered as Transfer Application No.1441 of 2002. B. On 30.06.2000 the appellant entered into an of 2002 was preferred by respondent No.1 to implead himself in the Transfer Application No.1441 of 2002 before drt , Coimbatore. In his reply telegram dated 03.09.2002 appellant denied all the assertions made by the advocate for respondent No.1 and cancelled the agreement dated 20.09.2000. The Date of decision : 28-03-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3353/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
70	ANILKUMAR JINABHAI PATEL (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. Vs PRAVINCHANDRA JINABHAI PATEL AND ORS. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 718 Judge Name: R.K. AGRAWAL,R. BANUMATHI against Pravinchandra Patel, M/s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited and others. In the said proceeding before drt , Anilkumar Patel has referred to the arbitration award passed in July, 1996 and that he has no interest in M/s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited. Based on such stand taken by Anilkumar Patel in O.A.No.298-A/2001, drt observed that Anilkumar Patel had resigned from the Directorship of the said company and exonerated him from the liability to the bank and dismissed O.A.No.298-A/2001 against Anilkumar Patel and Atulkumar Maganlal Date of decision : 27-03-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3313/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

71	ITC LIMITED Vs BLUE COAST HOTELS LTD. & ORS. – [2018] 5 S.C.R. 516 Judge Name: S.A. BOBDE,L. NAGESWARA RAO . The debtor filed a securitization application6 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the drt ’) against the taking over of the symbolic possession by the creditor. In the meanwhile, the creditor published the first auction sale notice7 with a reserve price of Rs. 403 crores which came to be postponed in view of the negotiations between the parties for the repayment of the dues. Upon default in the repayment of the outstanding amount, a second sale notice was published on 09.01.2014 with the same reserve price. The drt passed an interim order,8 directing the creditor Date of decision : 19-03-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2928/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
72	DWARIKA PRASAD Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 29 Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR sale or transfer that the secured asset is not to be sold or transferred. The appellant was aware of the proceedings initiated by the bank for asserting its right to recover its dues by selling the property. The appellant moved the drt in Securitization Application. During the pendency of those deposit the amount of Rs 2,00,000 as against the dues of Rs.36 lakhs. This was not acceptable. The proceedings before the drt were listed on 1 February 2016 during the course of which the appellant stated that he would move a redemption application within three days. The proceedings were Date of decision : 06-03-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/148/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
73	INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED Vs M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS – [2018] 1 S.C.R. 1096 Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN . On analysing the above provisions of the drt Act, we find that the said Act is a complete code by itself as far as recovery of debt is concerned. It provides for various modes of recovery. It incorporates even the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the debt due under the recovery certificate can be recovered in various ways. The remedies mentioned therein are complementary to each other. The drt Act provides for adjudication. It provides for adjudication of disputes as far as the debt due is concerned. It covers secured as well as Date of decision : 23-02-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/18/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
74	KUDRAT SANDHU Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2018] 2 S.C.R. 1005 Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR February 2018. drt and DRAT 8. For the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the chart submitted by the learned Attorney General indicates that the selection process has been completed and appointments of Presiding officers have been made. This being the position, the selection process in respect of the drt shall not be affected. In respect of the DRAT also, the selection process has been completed and will hence be taken to its logical conclusion. CAT 9. In respect of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the chart submitted by the learned Attorney General indicates that after the constitution Date of decision : 22-02-2018 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/279/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
75	AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER Vs MATHEW K. C. – [2018] 1 S.C.R. 233 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA realise long term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the drt Act’) with passage of time, had become synonymous with those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspects have not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order. 10. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the drt Act it was held in Punjab National Bank vs Date of decision : 30-01-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1281/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
76	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF INDIA Vs YADAV CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD. AND ANR. – [2017] 12 S.C.R. 67 Judge Name: KURIAN JOSEPH,R. BANUMATHI after pursuing the matter before drt , DRAT and High Court, sought arbitration before Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Facilitation (MSMEDF) Council – Award passed by MSMEDF Council directing the Bank to pay Rs.J,62,82,0791- with interest @ 24% to first respondent – Upheld F by the the charges for security 0 sen1ices to the first respondent – Bank was under no obligation to pay the charges to the first respondent in any case after 24.07.2008(order of drt ) – High Court was not right in saying that drt had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and, thus, the order would Date of decision : 05-12-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5150/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
77	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer AGARWAL TRACOM PVT. LTD. Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. – [2017] 11 S.C.R. 164 Judge Name: R.K. AGRAWAL,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE Act, 2002 – ss.17 and 13 (4) – C Auction purchaser challimging the action of the secured creditor in foifeiting the deposit -Appropriate remedy- Filing q( an application uls.17 before the drt or writ petition u!Art.2261227 – Held: Reading of s.17(2) and r. 9(5) clear(v show that an action of within the expression “any person” as specified u!s. 17(1) and thus, enritled 10 challenge the action of the secured creditor before the drt by jl/ing an applicalion uls.17(1) – Security Interest E F G H (Enforcement} Rules, 2002 – rt: 8 and 9 – Constitution of India – Art. 2261227 Date of decision : 27-11-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/19847/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
78	M. D. FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs HERO FINCORP LTD. – [2017] 13 S.C.R. 800 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL not apply. In the present case, as stated above. the NPA Act is an additional remedy to the drt Act. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Even according to Snell s Principles of Equity (31st Edn., p. 119), the doctrine of election of Date of decision : 21-09-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/15147/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
79	M/S. INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRlES LTD. Vs ICICI BANK & ANR. – [2017] 8 S.C.R. 33 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL multiple fora such as Board oflndustrial and Financial Reconstruction (BlFR), Debt Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is F handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and insolvency is dealt with economic growth and development. 3. The Code seeks to provide for designating the NCLT and drt as the Adjudicating Authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals, respectively, for resolution of insolvency, liquidation and bankruptcy. The Code separates commercial aspects ofinsolvency Date of decision : 31-08-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8337/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
80	STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS. – [2017] 3 S.C.R. 487 Judge Name: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,UDAY UMESH LALIT Tribunal ( drt ) – Seeking recovery of thousands of crores of rupees – Filed by consortium of Banks – Against the Respondents debtors/Guarantors – Respondent Nos. JO and 11 had disclosed that respondent No. 3 (Guarantor) would be paid a sum of US$ 75 million by responde11t No. JO and D out of the said amount, a sum of US $ 40 million would be paid to the Banks immediately (The amount of US$ 40 million was received by respondent No. 3 on 25. 02. 2016) – The Banks moved interlocutory applications before drt (1) to freeze passport of respondent No. 3 (2) to issue arrest warrant against him Date of decision : 09-05-2017 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/6828/2016 | Disposal Nature : Hearing Adjourned

81	MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. – [2017] 4 S.C.R. 790 Judge Name: ARUN MISHRA,S. ABDUL NAZEER entered into, the property was unencumbered and was not under mortgage with HUDCO. Thus agreement with regard to 21 acres was not interdicted by interim order of drt . Thus SGS Constructions by making a huge payment of Rs.9 crores had acquired a right over the said unencumbered property. Thus HUDCO Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ” drt “). Maharaji Educational Trust (hereinafter referred to as “the Educational Trust”) had taken a loan of approximately Rs. 75 crores from Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (for short B ‘HUDCO’) and mortgaged properties Nos. l to 6. The Trust is Date of decision : 08-05-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6463/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
82	K. SlTARAM & ANR. Vs CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD. & ANR. – [2017] 4 S.C.R. 850 Judge Name: R.K. AGRAWAL,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL -respondent C Company borrowed a sum of Rs. 900 lakhs from consortium of Banks led by State Bank of Travancore (SBT) – Non-payment of loan by respondent – Recovery proceedings by SBT before drt , partially decreed – However, SBT assigned the debt due from respondent to Kotak Mahindra Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ( drt ), Mumbai. On 22.07.2005, the drt passed a partial decree awarding a sum of Rs. 812.26 lakhs with 12 per G cent interest. (b) On 29.03.2006, the State Bank ofTravancore assigned the debts due from the complainant-Company to the Kotak Mahindra Bank together Date of decision : 21-03-2017 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2285/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
83	ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs EIH LIMITED & ORS. – [2016] 8 S.C.R. 437 Judge Name: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,ASHOK BHUSHAN Tribunal ( drt ), Bangalore. A B c D E F G H 454 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. 38. The High Court, while granting the leave to the State Bank of Mysore passed an order that no coercive steps are to be taken against the assets of the company during or after the G conclusion of proceedings before drt , Bangalore. H 40. It appears that in the recovery proceedings, the assets were auctioned and Anita Internationals were the auction purchaser. The issue was raised before the High Court that in view of the order of Madras High Court dated I Date of decision : 07-12-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11886/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
84	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UCO BANK AND ANR. Vs DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS. – [2016] 11 S.C.R. 723 Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE and Financial Institutions, Act 1993 (for short the ” drt Act”) and also the Act of 2002 must be understood by noticing the absence ofany specific provision in either of 0 the Central enactments containing a similar/parallel provision of a first charge in favour of the bank. The judgment of this Date of decision : 25-11-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11247/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
85	STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs MUKESH JAIN & ANR. – [2016] 8 S.C.R. 427 Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,L. NAGESWARA RAO 34 – Suit against proceedings initiated uls. 13(4) – lnvolving debt less C than Rs. 10 lakhs – Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of bar u!s. 34 or is it maintainable in view of s. 1 (4) of drt Act which debars the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of debts below Rs. JO lakhs – Held: The jurisdiction of civil court is barred in respect of action taken under the SARFAESl Act and the remedy available is before the Tribunal under drt Act – As per s. I (4) of drt Act, D provisions of drt Act would not apply where the amount of debt is less than Rs. JO /akhs – But the Date of decision : 08-11-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/210/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
86	ANITA INTERNATIONAL Vs TUNGABADRA SUGAR WORKS MAZDOOR SANGH – AND OTHERS – [2016] 6 S.C.R. 635 Judge Name: J.S. KHEHAR,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL application filed by the Bank, the prayer made was, thaf the Bank be permitted leave to proceed with recovery proceedings before the drt . By the order dated 10.3.2000, the Company Court in the High Court at Madras, while granting leave, imposed two conditions. Firstly, the Official Liquidator would have to be impleaded by the bank in the recovery proceedings before the drt . And secondly, no coercive steps would be taken against the assets of the company during or after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribu1.ial. It cannot be said that the aforesaid order passed by the High Date of decision : 04-07-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6042/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
87	AXIS BANK Vs SBS ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER – [2016] 2 S.C.R. 920 Judge Name: KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Any person aggrieved by the order of the drt under Section 17 of the F SARFAESI Act, is entitled to prefer an appeal along with the prescribed fee within the permitted period of 30 days. For ‘preferring’ an appeal, a fee is prescribed, whereas for the Tribunal to ‘entertain’ the appeal, the aggrieved person has to make a deposit of fifty 11er cent of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the G drt , whichever is less. This amount can, at the discretion of the Tribunal, in Date of decision : 22-04-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4379/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
88	M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANR Vs BIFR& ORS. – [2016] 11 S.C.R. 419 Judge Name: KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN the SICA o;verrides the provisions of the drt Act – Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( drt Act) – ss. 17, 18 and 34. ‘ 419 A • B c D E F G H 420 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 11 S.C.R. Sick Industrial, the Delhi High Court B stayed both the orders, which stay continued until 24.7.2008, when, by the impugtied judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 5. Meanwhile, the sale notice of8.8.2003. was challenged before the drt by the appellants. The said challenge was unsuccessful, as a C result Date of decision : 29-01-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/614/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
89	VISHAL N. KALSARIA Vs BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2016] 1 S.C.R. 419 Judge Name: V. GOPALA GOWDA,AMITAVA ROY extend to the laws operating in the same field. Interpreting the non obstante clause of the SARFAESI Act, a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Central Ba11k 1if India v. State of Kera/a & Ors.'” has held as under: “18. The drt Act and Securitisation Act were enacted by Parliament in securitisation and ‘” 12009) 4 sec 94 VISHAL N. KALSARIA v. BANK OF !NOIA & ORS. 443 [Y. GOPALA GOWDA, .1.) empowering the banks etc. to take possession of the securities A and sell them without inte1’vention of the Court. xxx xxx xxx 110. The drt Act facilitated establishment of two-tier Date of decision : 20-01-2016 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/52/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
90	PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION P. LTD. Vs M/S. HARYANACONCAST LIMITED &ANR. – [2015] 15 S.C.R. 102 Judge Name: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH against Megnostarwas allowed by drt -11, Delhi on 13.07.2010 holding the company liable to pay to the bank Rs.12.95 crores approx. with pendente lite and future interest @ 15.5. % p.a. with quarterly interests from date of filing of O.A. till date of C realization. To realize its dues, the Date of decision : 29-12-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3646/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

91	CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs C. L. VIMLA & ORS. – [2015] 5 S.C.R. 200 Judge Name: JASTI CHELAMESWAR,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE further orders. In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser filed the applications H 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A seeking vacation of the Interim orders. On 22.01.2007, the interim order was vacated by the drt in the absence of the appellant. Thus, the guarantor continued in possession till 31.1.2007. The auction purchaser moved an application on 01.02.2007 for recalling the order dated 22.01.2007: On B 5.02.2007, the High Court LokAdalatpermitted the appellant to request the drt to defer the proceedings. An application made in this regard was dismissed on 22.2.2007 Date of decision : 28-04-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4043/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
92	KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. & ORS. – [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1097 Judge Name: H.L. DATTU,S.A. BOBDE,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE served. On 15.07.03, an ex-parte final order in favour of IDBI for recovery of above mentioned sum C i.e. Rs. 25,26,60,836/- along with interest@ 7.8% p.a. was passed by drt . ORT expressly directed that in the event of failure on the part of the Company to pay the decretal amount, IDBI will be the properties of the company but creditors may continue to apply for recovery before the drt . We do not think that such an ,anomalous purpose can be attributed to Parliament in the present legislative scheme. E Though there is no doubt that Parliament may expressly bring about such a situation Date of decision : 27-10-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5225/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
93	BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. Vs VCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. – [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1202 Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,S.A. BOBDE Act before the drt for a recovery certificate against the respondent for Rs. 8,62,41,973.36/-. Though the respondent entered appearance before the drt , G it filed Civil Suit No. 77of1998 before the Calcutta High Court against the appellant claiming a decree for sale of pledged shares and payment did not have jurisdiction since the subject matte~ was within B c the exclusive jurisdiction of the drt . The Single Judge allowed that application and directed that the suits be taken off from D the file of the High Court. The Division Bench stayed operation of the Order of the Single Judge Date of decision : 17-09-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8972/2014 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
94	VASU P. SHETTY Vs M/S HOTEL VANDANA PALACE & ORS. – [2014] 9 S.C.R. 38 Judge Name: S.S. NIJJAR,A.K. SIKRI Writ Petition 6471/2006 challenging the auction notice. However, it withdrew this Writ Petition on 1.6.2006 with D liberty to avail alternate remedy to challenge the auction that is provided under SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, it filed the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the drt . This appeal was dismissed by the drt on 5.7.2007 with the observations that the borrower was only adopting dilatory E tactics. This order was challenged by the borrower in the form of writ petition filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. The learned Single Judge echoed Date of decision : 22-04-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4679/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
95	MATHEW VARGHESE Vs M. AMRITHA KUMAR & ORS. – [2014] 2 S.C.R. 736 Judge Name: A.K. PATNAIK,F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA well as S.A. filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, directed the drt to hear the parties and dispose of both the cases or at least the Securitisation Application filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents without any delay. The High Court also noted that c at that point of time, the drt had fixed 10.11.2007, it is stated that even thereafter the sale was not effected. Pursuant to the said order, the 1st and 2nd Respondents stated to have deposited the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the 4th Respondent-Bank. On 27.12.2007, G the drt passed Orders in S.A. No.20 of 2007 dismissing the said Date of decision : 10-02-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1927/2014 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
96	TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD. Vs STATE THROUH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANR. – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 411 Judge Name: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH in the name of a company E viz. Shri Deepadharani Yarns Pvt. Ltd., the company has not been arrayed as an accused while three of its Directors are so arrayed, and · (3) The bank has a remedy for recovering the money in question for which it has obtained an order of the drt and F can also Date of decision : 20-11-2013 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1958/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
97	JAGDISH SINGH Vs HEERALAL AND OTHERS – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 232 Judge Name: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI bona fide purchaser for value and the sale was confirmed in his favour as early as on 08.11.2005. Further, it was pointed out that the application preferred by Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 before the G drt , challenging the sale notice dated 08.11.2005, was also dismissed by the drt on 21.07.2006 Date of decision : 30-10-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9771/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
98	STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs DHARMINDER BHOHI AND OTHERS – [2013] 9 S.C.R. 410 Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,DIPAK MISRA in disposal of cases and granting of adjournments by ORT and DRAT – Object of the Act – Explained — Held: Delay in disposal of application by drt and appeal by DRAT 0 has the potentiality or creating a corrosion in the economic spine of the country – Grant of an adjournment should be an INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993: G ss. 19 and 22 – Object of the Act and the procedure before Tribunal – Held: drt and ORA T shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the rules framed — They have Date of decision : 13-09-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8486/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
99	HILL PROPERTIES LTD. Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2013] 10 S.C.R. 89 Judge Name: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI Share Certificate No.45. Union Bank of India filed Suit No.1079 of 1993 for C recovery of the dues and also for enforcement of the security. The suit was later transferred to the ORT, Mumbai, and was numbered as OA No.245 of 2001. The drt , Mumbai, later passed an order of attachment in respect Date of decision : 11-09-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7939/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
100	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs PANDURANG KESHAV GORWARDKAR & ORS – [2013] 3 S.C.R. 269 Judge Name: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,JASTI CHELAMESWAR,MADAN B. LOKUR date of sale – Where the sale of security has been effected in execution of recovery certificate issued by drt , distribution of undisbursed proceeds has to be made by drt alone in accordance with s. 529A of Companies Act and by oo other forum or authority – Where debtor company is not G in. The claims of the workmen who claim to be entitled to payment pari passu have to be considered and adjudicated by the liquidator of the debtor company and not by the drt . [para 73] [317-H; 318-A] B 3.3. The impugned judgment is set aside. The Debt C Recovery Tribunal and the official Date of decision : 07-05-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7045/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

101	THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, U.P. AND UTIARAKHAND Vs ALLAHABAD BANK AND ORS. – [2013] 4 S.C.R. 207 Judge Name: H.L. DATTU,DIPAK MISRA the Official E Liquidator to hand over the possession of the properties in respect of which the sale had been confirmed by the Recovery Officer of drt . Similar prayer was also made by the Allahabad Bank by filing another application. As is evincible from the factual narration, the Official Date of decision : 12-03-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2511/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
102	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. – [2013] 1 S.C.R. 480 Judge Name: D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU examined. In light of the study and requirements of additional facilities, the same has been increased to 7200 sq. ft. and 4500 sq. ft. respectively. In case more than one drt is accommodated in one building, space would be saved for common facilities such as bar room, consultation chamber Date of decision : 22-01-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/617/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
103	PRAVIN GADA AND ANOTHER Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2012] 13 S.C.R. 611 Judge Name: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA stay on 26th February, 2007 as a consequence of which the entire process of holding a fresh auction came to a c standstill. At this juncture, an application was filed by Umrah Developers to permit it to withdraw the amount which it had deposited. The application was rejected by the drt which Date of decision : 03-12-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8658/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
104	JITENDRA NATH SINGH Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ORS. – [2012] 13 S.C.R. 339 Judge Name: S.H. KAPADIA,A.K. PATNAIK,SWATANTER KUMAR primarily dealing with the question whether the amoiunt directed to be realized by sale of assets of the debtor company by the drt , at the instance of Allahabad Bank, may straightaway be released in its favour, or whether, keeping in view the provisions of Section 19(19) G of the ROB Act read with Date of decision : 21-09-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6755/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Matter Remitted back to company court
105	EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs O.L. OF ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED – [2011] 15 S.C.R. 336 Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,H.L. DATTU the Securitisation Act. Evidently, Parliament did not intend to give priority to the dues of private creditors over sovereign debt of the State. E If the provisions of the drt Act and the Securitisation Act are interpreted keeping in view the background and context in which these legislations Date of decision : 08-11-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9630/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
106	KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV AND ORS. Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. – [2011] 2 S.C.R. 602 Judge Name: D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU any person affected by an action u/s. 13(4) by providing for an F appeal before the drt – Ordinarily relief under Articles 2261 227 of the Constitution is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person – Therefore, High Court was fully justified in Date of decision : 07-02-2011 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/338/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
107	M/S J.P. BUILDERS & ANR. Vs A. RAMADAS RAO & ANR. – [2010] 15 S.C.R. 538 Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,ANIL R. DAVE injunction restraining the appellants from alienating or encumbering or dealing with the subject property was granted. The prayer for mandatory injunction for directing the appellants to discharge the loan in respect of ORT proceedings pending on the file of drt – 1, Chennai, thereby retrieve the Date of decision : 22-11-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9821/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
108	PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs M/S. ALLIED BEVERAGE COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND ORS. – [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1123 Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,B.S. CHAUHAN parties therein should appear before the Recovery Officer-I, drt -111 Delhi on 09.08.2005 for execution of the same. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer, the Company preferred an appeal being F Appeal No. 70 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Date of decision : 01-10-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8443/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
109	COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2010] 10 S.C.R. 124 Judge Name: J.M. PANCHAL,A.K. PATNAIK of India that through various legislative measures stlch as the drt Act, the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Credit Information D Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and through some administrative measures, the res’pondents are trying to reduce the number and amount of NPAs and to detect and check bank Date of decision : 18-08-2010 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/291/1998 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
110	ZONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs M/S. DEVI ISPAT LTD. & ORS. – [2010] 9 S.C.R. 417 Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,ANIL R. DAVE provided for in the contract or before the drt or under the Securitization Act. But, if the instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good, public interest, unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably or its actions are discriminatory E and violative of Article 14 of the Cor.stitution of India Date of decision : 30-07-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6077/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

111	M/S. JOHN IMPEX (PVT.) LTD. & ANR. Vs ATHUL KAPUR & ORS – [2009] 11 S.C.R. 863 Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH both the Tribunals and before the High Court. But with a view to deprive the Bank of the legitimate dues and to delay the proceedings initiated against them, they did not appear before drt . Though it was not necessary for the Bank to serve the appellants once again, they made a prayer to the extremely important fact that they had appeared before the civil court and had filed B written statement. The application proceeded on the footing as if the appellants were never aware of any proceedings initiated against them by the plaintiff Bank. drt was, therefore, wholly right in dismissing Date of decision : 31-07-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4960/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
112	NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. Vs HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION – [2009] 12 S.C.R. 54 Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,A.K. GANGULY taken a contrary view. SECTION 31 OF drt ISSUE: 13. We may at this juncture notice the provisions for transfer under the ORT Act especially Section 31 which states that only suits or proceeding pending before the court immediately before the establishment of the Tribunal under the Act shall Date of decision : 29-07-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4796/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
113	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND ANR. Vs M/S. ASHOK SAW MILL – [2009] 11 S.C.R. 599 Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,CYRIAC JOSEPH authority after conducting an adjudication into the matter to declare any such action invalid and also to restore possession even though possession may have been made over to the transferee. The consequences of B the authority vested in drt under Sub-Section (3) of Section 17 necessarily implies that Date of decision : 16-07-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4429/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
114	CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. – [2009] 3 S.C.R. 735 Judge Name: B.N. AGRAWAL,G.S. SINGHVI striking down State legislations on the ground that l the same were in conflict with the Central legislations – ~ Constitution of India, 1950 – Arlicle 254. drt Act and Securitisation Act – Enactment of – B Legislative intent – Discussed. Interpretation of statutes: Non-obstante clause – Held Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others v. State of Bihar and others (supra), which has been expressly approved by the Constitution B Bench. 15. Undisputedly, the drt Act and Securitisation Act have been enacted by Parliament under Entry 45 in List I in the Seventh Schedule whereas Bombay and Kerala Acts have Date of decision : 27-02-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/95/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
115	KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs MIS ARIHANT THREADS LTD. & ORS. – [2008] 12 S.C.R. 702 Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,ALTAMAS KABIR & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. MIS ARI HANT 705 … “‘;1 THREADS LTD. & ORS . . , and movable property. Against the order of the Recovery A ~ .. ‘.’) ” Officer fixing the reserve price, the company filed an appeal before drt . In the meantime, auction took place in which the appellant was declared as highest application to implead it in the pending appeals. The application for impleadment was allowed by drt . 111 the c meantime, drt allowed the appeal of the Company setting aside the auction sale subject to certain conditions with regard to payment of interest, expenses etc. How~ver, the Company preferred Date of decision : 25-08-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5225/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
116	SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI Vs LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS & ORS. – [2008] 10 S.C.R. 782 Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,D.K. JAIN stage that SBI was one of the major creditors. It initiated recovery proceedings against the Company by filing Original Application No. 2638 of 1999 and + got a decree from Debt Recovery Tribunal ( drt )-1, Mumbai D for a sum of Rs.84.39 crores with interest. Other financial insti- tutions had also initiated proceedings for recovery of their dues. Receiver was appointed by drt -1, Mumbai, who took posses- sion of the properties of the Comrany. Steps were also taken to protect properties by employing police force. The Receiver E also met representatives of Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, rec Date of decision : 11-07-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4324/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
117	SUNIL PODDAR AND ORS. Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA – [2008] 1 S.C.R. 261 Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,ALTAMAS KABIR . 269. UNION BANK OF INDIA [C.K. THAKKER, J.] -. -r· appealed against the order passed by the drt , but the Debt A Recovery AppellatE;! Tribunal, Allahabad (‘DRAT’ for short) also dismissed the appeal. A writ petition filed against the order of DRAT also met with the same fate. The High Court how the matter has been placed before us. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that drt committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in proceeding with the application and deciding it on merits ex-parte in absence c of Date of decision : 08-01-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/86/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
118	MAKSUD SAIYED Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1113 Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI . details, the party claimed against the Bank Date of (Rs. in Filing lacs) 4 drt , M/s. A.R.B. 993.74 The case is filed against A’bad Nagami A’bad the Bank for non- 283.03 Nicotine submission of export Pvt. Ltd. bills and non-releasing of the sanctioned limits. We have taken plea that since the addressed to Respondent No. 2 herein through his advocate dated 25.01.2005 stated: “My client says and submits that the litigation you are mentioning does not exist at drt , Ahmedabad. On the contrary my client has filed Special Civil Suit No. 178/2003 on 28.3.2003 and the same is pending C for Date of decision : 18-09-2007 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1248/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
119	BHAVYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2007] 10 S.C.R. 1 Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI of deposit is a condition of impossibility which renders the remedy made available before the drt as nugatory and illusory. The learned Attorney General refutes the aforesaid contention. It is further submitted that such a condition of pre-deposit has been B held to be valid by this Court earl~r Date of decision : 18-09-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4340/2007 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
120	SYNDICATE BANK Vs ESTATE OFFICER & MANAGER, A.P.I.I.C. LTD. & ORS. – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 619 Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU recover the amount by sale of mortgaged property, it was held that despite the fact that in the F recovery certificate the schedule of the properties attached -and sold was shown to be nil, stating : G H “Be it as it may, the finding, recorded by the drt as against the APIIC, in no manner Date of decision : 30-08-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7824/2004 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench

121	STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs VIJAY KUMAR – [2007] 4 S.C.R. 475 Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA payment alongwith the interest for the default period u Moreover, Appellant- D bank had never indicated that settlement failed due to failure to stick to time .. schedule-Hence not fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Art.136. The appellant-Bank filed recovery petition before the drt ._The schedule. drt passed an order in terms of compromise. Respondent defaulted in payment. Appellant-Bank took the view that there was non-compliance with the terms ~ of the compromise/settlement, therefore, they were entitled to recover the F entire decretal amount . .. Respondent filed writ Date of decision : 26-03-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1573/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
122	SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICALS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. Vs ADMINISTRATOR OF SPECIFIED UNDERTAKING OF UNIT TRUST OF INDIA AND ORS – [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 932 Judge Name: B.P. SINGH,ALTAMAS KABIR accumulated liabilities exceeding Rs. I, 0001- crore and defaulted in its obligation to the UT/ under the common agreement-UT! filed a claim under the drt Act-Company filed an objection alleging that the Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India and UT/ Trustee Company Private Limited (”specified company”), not being “financial institutions” within the meaning of the drt Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) had E no jurisdiction to decide the claim- drt dismissed the objection-The Appellate Tribunal held that they were “financial institutions” as defined by Section 2(h Date of decision : 13-12-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5782/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
123	M/S TRANSCORE Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 785 Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA , 1993 (inserted by amending Act 30 of 2004)-Section 19(1) first proviso-Recovery of bank dues-Recourse to 2002 Act-Withdrawal of original application in terms of the first proviso to section 19(1)-Held: ls not a condition precedent-Bank having elected to seek their remedy in terms of drt Act can still invoke 2002 Act for realizing secured assets D without withdrawing application filed before drt -lt’s the discretion of the Bank-Doctrine of election is not applicable-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XXIII, Rule 1(3). Sections 13(4), 13(8) and 17(3)-Recovery of dues by secured Date of decision : 29-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3228/2006 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Banks/Fi’s appeal/I.A. allowed, Borrower’s appeal/IA dismissed.
124	ICICI BANK LTD. Vs SIDCO LEATHERS LTD. AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 528 Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN due repayment, discharge and redemption by the Company.” It is not in dispute that the suit filed by Respondent No. 2 has been C decreed; whereas the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) initiated by the appellant and others is still pending. It is furthermore not in dispute that Date of decision : 28-04-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2332/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
125	ANDHRA BANK Vs OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANR. – [2005] 2 S.C.R. 776 Judge Name: N. SANTOSH HEGDE,B.P. SINGH,S.B. SINHA disbursal. The.said order was later upheld by the Division Bench of High Court. Meanwhile, the suit filed by the appellant was transferred to drt . Hence the present appeal. Appellant-B~nk contended that High Court erred in passing the order since the assets of the Company had been sold as a going Date of decision : 14-03-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1321/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
126	JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI AND ANR. Vs INDUSIND BANK LTD. AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 681 Judge Name: D.M. DHARMADHIKARI,H.K. SEMA including the husbands of the appellants, the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( drt ) ordered for attachment inter alia of the Suit property. Appellants G objected to the attachment claiming to have contributed for the purchase of the property from their independent income. While remitting the matter to drt to record a finding on the ownership of the appellants, the apex court permitted the parties to lead evidences, however, it was clarified that the burden of proving their shares will be on the appellants. H 681 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A For the remittances under Date of decision : 06-12-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6790/2003 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
127	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [2004] 3 S.C.R. 982 Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,BRIJESH KUMAR,ARUN KUMAR that direction has so far been taken under section 13(4). The bar of civil court thus applies to D all such matters which may be taken cognizance of by the drt , apart from those matters in which measures have already been taken under sub­ section (4) of Section 13. However, to a very limited Date of decision : 08-04-2004 | Case Number : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL)/92/2002 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
128	ALLAHABAD BANK Vs CANARA BANK AND ANR. – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1102 Judge Name: M. JAGANNADHA RAO,N. SANTOSH HEGDE 1956 seeking stay of recovery proceedings and for staying sales of assets of company by the appellant Bank. In the said application the Company Judge passed an order staying the further sale of assets of the Company in the recovery case in the drt and also restraining disbursement of monies Date of decision : 10-04-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2536/2000 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
129	UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND ORS. – [1999] 2 S.C.R. 496 Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,M.B. SHAH into consideration to’ interpret the provisions of the Act-Hence, suit filed by the appellant-bank for recovery of debt from one of the several defendants and for certain ancillary and incidental relieft against other defendants-Held, drt had exclusive jurisdiction to try the suit-Civif Procedure Date of decision : 08-04-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2161/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
130	GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT AND ANOTHER Vs DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE AND OTHERS – [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 186 Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,M.K. MUKHERJEE Subsequetly, an application, Ex. 27, filed by the appellants for leave A to amend the election petition for correcting certain inadvertant “errors, omissions and slips” was allowed drt 28.11.1991 and the necessary correc­ tions were carried out in the election petition. Again an application Ex. 47 Date of decision : 18-07-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/640/1993 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Important Supreme Court Judgments on DRT SARFAESI Act, 2002/ Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, DRT SARFAESI RDDBFI Act Supreme Court of India Judgements Advocate in Jabalpur – Lawyer in Jabalpur – Ajay Gautam Advocate Jabalpur