x
INTEGRITY
│
Advocates
•
Solicitors
•
Mediators
•
Chartered Accountants
•
Insolvency Professionals
Advocates & Solicitors
Chapter 7
Appeals before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT)
The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 establishes a two-tier adjudicatory framework comprising the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). Any person aggrieved by an appealable order of the DRT may invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the DRAT, subject to the conditions prescribed by the Act. The appellate mechanism promotes consistency in judicial interpretation while ensuring that errors committed by the Tribunal may be corrected by a superior specialised forum.
Unlike an ordinary civil appeal, proceedings before the DRAT are governed by the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The Act also prescribes a statutory pre-deposit requirement in specified cases, reflecting the legislative intent to discourage frivolous appeals while preserving the right of genuine litigants to seek appellate review.
Purpose of this Chapter
This chapter explains the appellate jurisdiction of the DRAT, limitation, filing procedure, statutory pre-deposit, powers of the Appellate Tribunal, judicial review by constitutional courts and practical guidance for advocates.
7.1 Statutory Framework
Appeals before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal are primarily governed by the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The principal statutory provision is Section 20, which provides the right of appeal against orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Appeals arising under the SARFAESI Act are governed by the relevant provisions of that enactment.
| Provision | Subject Matter |
|---|---|
| Section 20 | Appeal to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. |
| Section 21 | Deposit of debt amount before entertaining the appeal. |
| SARFAESI Act – Section 18 | Appeal against orders passed under Section 17. |
7.2 Who May File an Appeal?
Any person aggrieved by an appealable order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal may prefer an appeal before the DRAT. The appellant may be a bank, financial institution, borrower, guarantor or any other person whose legal rights are adversely affected by the order of the Tribunal.
| Appellant | Illustrative Situation |
|---|---|
| Bank / Financial Institution | Aggrieved by dismissal or partial allowance of an Original Application. |
| Borrower | Challenges an adverse recovery order. |
| Guarantor | Disputes findings relating to guarantee liability. |
| Other Aggrieved Person | Challenges an order affecting legal rights recognised by the Act. |
7.3 Limitation for Filing an Appeal
An appeal must be instituted within the limitation period prescribed under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Delay may be condoned only where sufficient cause is established and the statutory requirements are satisfied. Advocates should therefore obtain certified copies of the impugned order without delay and prepare the appeal well within the prescribed limitation period.
Practice Tip
Never wait until the last day to prepare an appeal. Obtain the certified copy immediately, prepare a limitation chart and compile all documents required for filing. Early preparation also allows sufficient time to address the statutory pre-deposit requirement wherever applicable.
7.4 Memorandum of Appeal
Every appeal should clearly identify the findings challenged, the statutory provisions involved and the relief sought. Grounds of appeal must be precise, legally sustainable and supported by the record of the proceedings before the DRT. New factual issues not forming part of the original record should ordinarily be avoided unless permitted by law.
A Memorandum of Appeal ordinarily contains:
- Particulars of the appellant and respondents.
- Details of the impugned order.
- Facts leading to the appeal.
- Specific grounds of challenge.
- Reliefs prayed for.
- List of annexures.
- Verification and supporting affidavit, where required.
7.5 Statutory Pre-Deposit under Section 21
One of the distinctive features of the appellate mechanism under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is the requirement of a statutory pre-deposit before an appeal can be entertained. Section 21 provides that where an appeal is preferred by a person from whom the amount of debt is due, the prescribed percentage of the debt determined by the Tribunal is ordinarily required to be deposited before the Appellate Tribunal.
The requirement seeks to discourage frivolous appeals while ensuring that genuine litigants continue to have access to the appellate forum. The Appellate Tribunal possesses limited discretion to reduce the amount of pre-deposit within the limits prescribed by law.
Important Note
Before drafting an appeal, always examine whether the statutory pre-deposit requirement is attracted. If applicable, advise the client regarding the amount payable and the possibility of seeking reduction within the limits permitted by Section 21.
7.6 Admission of Appeal
After presentation of the Memorandum of Appeal together with the prescribed documents and proof of compliance with the statutory requirements, the Registry scrutinises the appeal. Upon removal of objections, the appeal is placed before the Appellate Tribunal for admission.
If the appeal is found to be maintainable, notice is issued to the respondents and the matter proceeds for hearing in accordance with law.
| Stage | Proceeding |
|---|---|
| Step 1 | Presentation of Memorandum of Appeal. |
| Step 2 | Scrutiny by the Registry. |
| Step 3 | Removal of office objections, if any. |
| Step 4 | Admission of the appeal. |
| Step 5 | Issue of notice to the respondents. |
| Step 6 | Final hearing and disposal. |
7.7 Interim Orders during Appeal
Pending disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal may grant appropriate interim relief wherever the facts and circumstances justify such intervention. Interim orders are intended to preserve the rights of the parties and prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous.
Common Interim Reliefs
- Stay of operation of the impugned order.
- Stay of recovery proceedings.
- Status quo regarding secured assets.
- Protection against coercive recovery measures.
- Other interim directions necessary in the interests of justice.
7.8 Powers of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
The DRAT possesses wide appellate powers to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. After considering the record and hearing the parties, the Appellate Tribunal may affirm, modify, set aside or remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
| Power | Effect |
|---|---|
| Confirm | Affirms the order passed by the DRT. |
| Modify | Alters part of the findings or relief granted. |
| Set Aside | Reverses the impugned order. |
| Remand | Returns the matter to the DRT for fresh adjudication. |
7.9 Hearing of the Appeal
Appeals are ordinarily heard after completion of pleadings and service upon all respondents. During the hearing, the parties address arguments on questions of fact and law arising from the order under challenge. The Appellate Tribunal examines the record of the proceedings before the DRT together with the submissions advanced by both sides before arriving at its decision.
The appellate proceedings are intended to ensure that the decision of the Tribunal conforms to law and that any material error affecting the rights of the parties is appropriately corrected.
7.10 Disposal of Appeals
After considering the pleadings, documents and oral submissions, the Appellate Tribunal pronounces its judgment. Depending upon the facts of the case, it may dismiss the appeal, allow it wholly or partly, modify the order under challenge or remand the matter to the DRT for fresh consideration with appropriate directions.
Before Filing an Appeal
- Verify limitation carefully.
- Obtain the certified copy of the impugned order.
- Examine whether Section 21 pre-deposit is applicable.
- Prepare concise and legally sustainable grounds of appeal.
- Arrange all documents in chronological order.
- Seek interim relief only where justified by the facts.
7.11 Judicial Review by Constitutional Courts
Although the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides a complete statutory appellate mechanism, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and that of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution remains unaffected. However, constitutional courts ordinarily exercise self-imposed restraint where an effective statutory remedy before the DRT or the DRAT is available.
Judicial review is generally invoked only in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural justice, infringement of fundamental rights or manifest illegality apparent on the face of the record.
General Rule
The existence of an effective statutory remedy before the DRT or DRAT ordinarily discourages the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Courts. Litigants should therefore exhaust the remedies provided under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and the SARFAESI Act before approaching constitutional courts.
7.12 Important Judicial Decisions
The appellate jurisdiction of the DRAT and the availability of statutory remedies under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act have been explained in several important decisions of the Supreme Court. The following cases are particularly significant for practitioners.
| Decision | Legal Principle |
|---|---|
|
Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 |
The Supreme Court held that parties should ordinarily exhaust the statutory appellate remedies available under the Act instead of directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. |
|
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 |
Reiterated that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions where an effective statutory remedy exists before the DRT or DRAT. |
|
Authorized Officer, SBT v. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 |
Reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly in banking recovery matters when specialised statutory remedies are available. |
|
Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank (2000) 4 SCC 406 |
Recognised the legislative objective of establishing specialised tribunals for speedy adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. |
7.13 Practice Points for Advocates
- Examine whether the impugned order is appealable before drafting the Memorandum of Appeal.
- Verify limitation immediately upon receipt of the order.
- Advise the client regarding the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 21.
- Challenge only those findings that materially affect the rights of the appellant.
- Support every ground of appeal with reference to the record before the Tribunal.
- Seek interim protection only where immediate prejudice is likely to result.
7.14 Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Filing the appeal after expiry of limitation without a proper application for condonation of delay.
- Ignoring the statutory pre-deposit requirement.
- Raising new factual issues not forming part of the record before the DRT.
- Drafting vague or repetitive grounds of appeal.
- Invoking writ jurisdiction without first exhausting the statutory remedy.
- Failing to obtain certified copies of the impugned order and relevant documents.
Key Takeaways
- The DRAT is the statutory appellate forum against appealable orders of the DRT.
- Appeals are principally governed by Sections 20 and 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
- Compliance with limitation and statutory pre-deposit requirements is essential.
- The Appellate Tribunal may confirm, modify, set aside or remand the matter.
- Constitutional courts ordinarily expect parties to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
- Carefully drafted grounds of appeal significantly improve the prospects of appellate success.
Chapter Summary
This chapter examined the appellate framework established under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It discussed the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, limitation, statutory pre-deposit, appellate procedure, interim reliefs, judicial review by constitutional courts and the leading judicial precedents governing appellate proceedings.
The next chapter explores the interaction between proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and other important statutes, particularly the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Companies Act, 2013 and other allied laws affecting banking recovery litigation.