DRT  Legal  Solutions

(Debts Recovery Tribunal Legal Solutions) is an India based

Law Firm specializing in DRT, Securitisation, Sarfaesi, IBC, NCLT, Borrowers, Guarantors in Debts Recovery Tribunals and Defamation Solutions with Damages

Pioneers in Counter-claims and Damage Suits based on Law of Torts and Law of Damages

Personal Interest in Longevity, Wellness, Meditation, Laughter Yoga and Sound Health 

Phones (India) - Mobile - +91-9691103689, Off. & Res. +91-731-4049358

E-mail :- ramkishandrt@gmail.com  Web Site :- www.drtsolutions.com

 Weekly Mail - 111 to 120 - DRT Legal Solutions

Home Page, DRT Solutions, SARFACIE, Counter-claimContentsProducts & ServicesFrequently Asked QuestionsUseful Article-BorrowersUseful Article-GuarantorsRBI GuidelinesNotes-Law of TortsNotes-DamagesMiniArticles-Letters to EditorUseful Interactions with Clients & VisitorsSecuritisation Act-CommentsAbout Us-DRT SolutionsUseful Tips for DRT Advocates|| 138 NI Act Cheque Dishonour Cognizance Acquittal | NCLT, National Company Law Tribunal, BIFR, SICA  |  Video Interview - BS Malik, Sr. Supreme Court AdvocateLegal Forum of IndiaSuccess & Results of Our GuidanceDRT Orders in favour of Borrowers & GuarantorsOur Replies to Queries  on Current DRT Matters, Court Decisions etc.Measure of damages & Calculations under Torts & ContractsVideo Interview - GC Garg, Ex-Senior Bank OfficialSolar Healing, Yoga, Projector, Rebirth etc.Swami Ramdev, Yoga Guru, Cure for All Diseases, Medical Science RevolutionCourt Technologies IT Presentation Video ArgumentsArchiveDRT Solutions Weekly Mail for Borrowers & Guarantors   All India DRT Conference 2011 at IndoreArticle by Ram Kishan on Management & Technology in Indian JudiciarySARFAESI Securitisation Securitization Actar SA NPADRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers  DRT Solutions - Site Map for Borrowers & GuarantorsTransform India with Modi-DRT Solutions SuggestionsLaughter Yoga by Ram Kishan, IndoreDr Kataria Indore Visit - Plan, Progress & Record  Keto Diet Vegan I.F.- Personal Experience Age 79 Yrs

Weekly Mails - 1-10  11-20  21-30  31-40  41-50  51-60  61-70  71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130 131-140 141-150 151-160 161-170 171-180 181-190 191-200 201-210 211-220 221-230 231-240 241-250 251-260  261-270  271-280 281-290 291-300 301-310 311-320 321-330 331-340 341-350 351-360 361-370 371-380 381-390 391-400 401-410 411-Latest


Expert in:- DRT, Counterclaim, securitization, debt recovery tribunal, NCLT  matters




DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 120th Issue dated 27th August ’10


All Weekly mails right from 1st Issue to latest, click links above



(1) Proposed DRT Conference at Indore on 25th and 26th December 2010 


(1)    We have now formally commenced preparations for the proposed DRT Conference at Indore on 25th and 26th December 2010. A separate web page vide click at  Proposed DRT Conference 2010 at Indore has been launched on our web site. This web page will have date wise record of various information and activities of the proposed conference. It will be a gathering of our clients, their advocates, interested borrowers, guarantors and professionals from various disciplines coming from various parts of the country. The objective of the conference is to share experience and provide latest practical knowledge in respect of defence for borrowers and guarantors

(2)    The last conference held in May 2008 at Indore was so successful that many of the attendees made several queries as to when the next  conference will be held. The entire proceedings were video recorded and the DVDs were highly popular past 2 years. It was first attempt and now we hope to perform much better.

(3)    In the proposed conference there will be 2 sessions, one on 25th December ‘10(Saturday) from 4 PM to 9 PM. Another on 26th December ’10 (Sunday) from 10 AM to 5 PM. The complete proceedings will be video and audio recorded.

(4)    The participant fee for both the days will be Rs. 4500=00 per participant. It will include the cost of arrangements at venue, hard copies of conference materials, lunch and dinners, DVDs etc. There is early bird discount of 10% if the said fee is received on or before 30th September ‘10. The registrations will close by 31st November ’10. The participant fee may be remitted to our ICICI Bank current A/c no 09160500353 of DRT Legal Solutions in Ratlam Kothi Branch Indore IFSC Code ICIC0000916.

(5)    Those who wish to attend the conference may send following details to us by e-mail at ramkishandrt@gmail.com :-

(a) Name (b) Designation (c) Phone nos (d) Postal Address (c) Topics of interest.

(6)    All the details about the program, venue, hotels etc. will be announced through weekly mail and will also be available on the said separate web page on the Conference.

(7)    All the interested persons may offer their suggestions. The gist of the same will be published on the special web page vide click at Proposed DRT Conference 2010 at Indore  Depending on these interactions, the program of the conference will be suitably designed for maximum benefits to the participants.


(2) Hurried Adjudications in DRTs – Precautions and Remedial Measures   


Several among our clients all over the country are facing acute problems due to hurried adjudications in DRTs. Some of the problems and our comments including suggested solutions are as under:-


Problem The POs are undertaking huge no of hearings in a day and are very quick to dispose off the matters. As a result they are not prepared to listen fully the arguments of the defendant litigants and their advocates.


Comments :-

(a)    Points to be pressed during arguments be prepared and kept ready. Just before commencement of the arguments, the said points to be pressed be handed over. The PO is duty bound to listen point wise arguments. Further he is duty bound to deal with all the said points in his written order.

(b)     Insist for his orders in writing. Be calm, composed and respectful. Always have two persons present during proceedings so that there is no scope of missing of any hearings.

(c)    Take certified copy of the order. If any point has not been dealt with in the order, submit an application under Sec 151 of CPC i.e. inherent powers of the court with reference to the Supreme Court ruling vide (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 95, Mohd. Akram Ansari vs Chief Election Commissioner. As per this ruling, the PO is duty bound to deal with all the points pressed during the arguments.

(d)    Despite above submit a Review Petition first followed by Appeal to DRAT.

(e)    Obtain certified copies of all the proceedings and orders. Always submit written arguments.

(f)      If possible make a written record of the proceedings so that nothing is left to the memory.

(g)    Until and unless, above is done, never jump to higher courts as they are also heavily overloaded and the tendency is to read only the lower court judgment and to find fault with the litigants.

(h)    With above approach, complete happenings in DRTs will get recorded in writing. Things will get corrected at the foundation stage. It is a tedious, time consuming and expensive process but there is no alternative as there is saying ‘Justice Hurried Justice Buried’


Problem The POs are insisting for final arguments instead of deciding the interlocutory applications.


Comments :-

(a)    DRT is akin to a trial court where facts are to determined by the application of well defined process of adjudication. In this context, the Supreme Court ruling vide AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1167 Swaran Lata vs Harendra Kumar Para 6 will be quite useful. This judgment be kept ready and read out to the PO and submitted in written arguments.

(b)    As per Art. 141 of the Constitution, all courts in India including the DRTs are duty bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court. If there is any violation, it is regarded as ‘Error Apparent on Face of Record’ and duty of the court is to correct the said error. Otherwise, an application under section 151 of CPC, Review and Appeal or the remedial measures.

(c)    The DRTs are required to work in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice which are much wider than the limited scope of CPC.

(d)    Hence on vital points like inspection of documents and cross examination of bank officials, the DRTs are duty bound to deal with the interlocutory applications before insisting for final arguments.

(e)    Several of our clients have followed the above approach and have been successful in winning their cases in DRTs.


DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 119th Issue dated 20th August ’10


(1) Bombay High Court orders in favour of Borrower – matter of Inspection of Bank Documents   

One of our clients in Mumbai submitted an application in DRT for Inspection of Bank Documents in the case of Securitisation Appeal. The said application was dismissed by the DRT. The said client appealed to DRAT Mumbai. The DRAT Mumbai also dismissed the said appeal. The said client approached Bombay High Court. Finally the Bombay High Court ordered the bank to provide inspection of the bank documents. The details of this important judgment will be published in the weekly mail as soon as the certified copies of the order and proceedings are received.  

Our Comments  

(1)    One of the ingredients of proper trial of any Bank Litigation is production and inspection of documents. All the material documents are in power and possession of the bank. In almost all the cases we find that the banks oppose production and inspection of the said documents for the fear of losing the legal battle. Judgments as above will help the borrower in achieving more meaningful trial where the real truth will come out and justice will be achieved.

(2)    Another important ingredient is Cross-examination of Bank Officials. In this respect we have already covered the case of our another client who submitted an application for cross-examination of bank officials. In this case also DRT and DRAT decided against the borrower but subsequently the Patna High Court decided in favour of the borrower ordering cross-examination of the bank officials.

(3)    It is needless to mention that the first prerequisite of bank litigation is proper pleadings and then perfect contest on all dates. Such approach combined with inspection of documents and cross-examination of the bank officials will definitely result in winning the bank cases against the banks.  

(1) SC cautions High Courts so that unnecessary writs are not filed particularly when Appeal under Sec 17 of the Securitisation Act is pending in DRT – Our views supported in a news release 

The following news item (in The Asian Age) supports our views vide link


SC cautions HCs on recovery of debts


The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the high courts for interfering in debt recovery cases of nationalized banks and other public sector financial institutions’ through writ jurisdiction and the debt recovery tribunals for their failure to expedite the recoveries of non-performing assets.

Though the tribunal initially functioned with a great zeal but “with the passage of time the proceedings before them became synonymous with those of the regular courts - - ,” the apex court in a judgment said. A bench of justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly while deciding a petition of United Bank of India challenging the interference of the high court, pointed out that the Parliament passed new enactment — Securitisation and Reconstitution of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act in 2002, to ensure fast recovery of the NPA, which at one time were to the tune of Rs 1,20,000 crore.

But the unnecessary interference by HCs using their special powers of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, again had created problem for tribunals in for fast decisions in the NPA cases.

“It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncements of this court (SC), the high courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993 and the SARFAEST Act, 2002 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.”

Cautioning the HCs against using writ powers under Article 226, the bench said “we hope and trust that in future the HCs will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”

Terming the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act as “most radical legislative” enactments by Parliament to tackle the malaise of NPA, the apex court said the HCs should allow the cases to be handled by the tribunals under the provisions of these legislations.

Our comments 

(1)    The bank bureaucracy is not prepared to abide by the provisions of various law applicable to them, according to which first they have to make all out efforts to revive and help the business and industries and when its not possible to do so, last recourse should be taken to legal fight in the court of law including DRTs. Such provisions are numerous and comprehensive. The violations thereof are legally regarded as wrong doings inviting loss and damages which may result in counter-claim or damage suit.

(2)    The courts including DRTs are also bound by various provisions of law which again are numerous and comprehensive. Since the said courts and DRTs are trial courts, the facts are to be determined judicially which again call for specific procedural and substantive laws.

(3)    A knowledgeable defendant borrower is within his rights first to frame his pleadings and then to contest his case based on the said provisions of law. 

(4)    The above process is bound to take time. Any hurry or short-cut will result in violation of law and will result in further additional time.

(5)    In fact the DRTs will require much more time than the civil courts for the simple reason that Principles of Natural Justice have much vast scope compared with CPC. Further as usual since the  bank advocates normally oppose any and all actions by the defendant borrowers, the matter is dragged to higher courts.

(6)    It is needless to mention that on account of exhaustive pleadings, inspection of documents and cross-examination of bank officials along with application of above mentioned vast provisions of law, the bank litigations in DRTs will take much more than the time taken by the civil courts which required 15 to 20 years.

DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 118th Issue dated 13th August ’10



(1) SC fires the High Courts so that unnecessary writs are not filed particularly when Appeal under Sec 17 of the Securitisation Act are pending in DRTs – Interesting dialogue with an Advocate 

The above news item in the last weekly mail brought lot of comments from the litigants and the advocates. One interesting dialogue with an advocate is reproduced below. The name of the said advocate has been altered for the obvious reasons:-

(1) On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Advocate Ganguli wrote:-


Kindly forward to me the SC judgment.


(2) On Sat, 7 August, 2010 5:57:43 AM, Mr. Ram Kishan replied :-


Dear Mr. Ganguli,

The judgment is attached.

With best wishes,

Ram Kishan


(3) On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Advocate Ganguli wrote:-


Thanks. Nothing new. No ratio. What legal implication! A judgment to be forgotten soon.


(4) On Sun, 8 August, 2010 4:47:33 AM Mr. Ram Kishan replied:-


Dear Mr. Ganguli,

My views are as under:-


The implications are serious and eye opener for the borrowers and guarantors facing bank litigations in DRTs. They are as under:-


(1)   The HCs are heavily overloaded. The judges have no time to study the case file. They simply go through the conclusions and make up their mind to dispose off the cases accordingly. Even they have no time to listen to the arguments oral or written. Further they are under pressure due to disposal norms. The final outcome is a slipshod disposal based on common sense and not legal sense without anything being near to justice.

(2)   On account of above, the litigant suffers rather he is made a fool. For all such slipshod exercise he is made to shell out substantial amount directly to the Advocate and indirectly worries by way of being driven to higher bench or to the Supreme Court. He is fooled again where he is made to spent much greater amount and the outcome is virtually nil.

(3)   Thus on account of ignorance of the litigants, the advocates are getting enriched and the judges are enjoying huge salaries and perks.

(4)   It is high time to educate the public of such sorry state of affairs in the present judicial system.

(5)   Common public may not understand but the public in DRT litigations i.e. borrowers and guarantors is a different class. If the things are made known to them in correct perspective, they will be cautious of not approaching the higher courts.

(6)   Let us be sincere and honest. The purpose and objective of judicial system is to find out truth and reach to the justice. This is possible only when the judges have one or two cases per day. They are also human being. They should have the workload which they can dispose off thoroughly well in court time. They should not be under pressure to dispose off quickly as at present. Everything should be on paper. The judges should study and be prepared before the appearance of the advocate. The purpose of the arguments should be to raise questions to understand the matter. Despite these if there is any error or mistake, the same should be corrected by Review. The matter of Review should be attended to with much more thoroughness.

(7)   With above approach the facts will be truly determined judicially. There will be substantial material for higher court. But then the Higher court should also loaded as above with sufficient time.

(8)   My above observations are  based on study of working of judicial system in developed countries. Enough material is available on internet. I shall provide the references in the weekly mails.

With best wishes,

Ram Kishan


(5) On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Advocate Ganguli replied


i salute u. i cannot but agree with u.


Our Further Comments 


It is a question of mindset. The Judicial Community in developed countries have undergone sea change but in India the Advocates and Judges are not still able to come out of the mentality formed during British Rule. The following aspects need to be paid attention to:-


(a)    In USA, the Bar Association is making efforts to educate the public about the Judicial system so that the judicial community is kept in high image and reputation. Whereas in India, they do not want the public to be educated.

(b)    In UK, the working of Tribunals and Courts  since 1957 are being kept under the watch of Public. The judicial system are analyzed and improved by the management and technical experts but in India, the judicial officials don’t want any advice and guidance from outsiders leave alone the experts.

(c)    Justice Krishna Iyer at Page 133 of his Book ‘Law, Lawyers and Justice, 1988 edition has said that ‘Indian Judicial System is backward by 200 years. There are no real efforts to improve the said backwardness.

(d)    As per Article 141 of the Indian Constitution 1950, the law laid down by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts. The High Courts of Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh even have pronounced that the violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court will amount to ‘Error Apparent on face of Records and hence to be reviewed and corrected’ It is a sorry state of affairs that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is being violated openly and reviews are not being allowed. No system has been evolved yet to ensure compliance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

(e)    The Law of Torts, Consumer Protection Act and RTI are being applied to Public and other bodies but the Judicial Community does not want to apply any principles of such laws to them.

(f)      As per the SC in S.P. Gupta vs Union of India (AIR 1982 Supreme Court 149 ), the Judiciary is also one of the instrumentality of State whose primary duty and sole objective is to render justice. On account of emphasis on disposal, the said objective has gone to back seat. In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court said that the Judges in India should have an active and creative roles towards the weaker party. In bank litigations, the borrower only when he is in financial troubles is required to face the mighty banks but the Judiciary instead of having any sympathy with the borrowers is inclined only towards bank recoveries.

(g)    There are now more than 3 crores cases pending in the courts and such pendency is continuing to go up further with passage of time. It is surprising that such pendency has not become overnight. The question is that when it was 5 lacs and why it was allowed to go upto 10 lacs. Subsequently no effective actions were taken when it went upto 50 lacs. Still at the present level of 3 crores, there is no seriousness. Even one of the sitting High Court judges stated that it will take 320 years to clear the pendency.    

(h)    The time has come when it should be admitted that the remedial measures can not be devised by the Judiciary. The only solution, as was in UK in 1957, is to involve public in setting right the Judicial Machinery.  

(2) Use of Management & Technology in thwarting coercive recoveries


Recently we came across a real practical instance of use of management and technology in thwarting coercive recovery by the law deptt of a bank. The facts are as under. The real names have been altered to maintain the professional secrecy :-

(a)    The bank sent a recovery agent to the house of Mr. Manish Tondon, the borrower. The said agent said that he was Altaf Hussain and he threatened the borrower to clear the bank dues otherwise be prepared for dire consequences. The borrower refused to discuss the matter with Mr. Hussain and desired that he will talk directly with the bank officials only. Mr. Hussain had to return without any promise from the borrower.

(b)    Sensing that the bank official may come next day, Mr. Tondon fitted spy camera for video recording and voice recorders for audio recording.

(c)    Next day one of the bank officials Mr. Chawla came along with Mr. Hussain. They threatened with dire consequences and used unparliamentary  language to scare the borrower Mr. Tondon and his family. The entire incidence was video and audio recorded.

(d)    After the said persons left, the borrower prepared the CD of the video and audio record of the incidence as well as the transcript of the same. He filed FIR along with the said CD and transcript. Further he sent e-mail to the bank including the Chairman informing them about the said incidence including recording of the same.  and the said bank official followed by a legal notice

(e)    The bank officials sent Mr. Hussain who tendered his apology.  The discussions of Mr. Hussain were again video and audio recorded.

(f)      The bank officials subsequently made telephone calls to the borrower. The said calls were also recorded.

(g)    The borrower is contemplating initiating legal proceedings claiming loss and damages on account of the said incidence.


DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 117th Issue dated 6th August ’10


(1) Importance of Pleadings – Why expertise is required in preparing pleadings relating to Banking Litigations

The success in Bank Litigations in DRTs depends on Perfect Pleadings and Perfect adjudication on all dates. This is more so in respect of Borrowers and Guarantors as the complete system and attitudes of the Judges and Advocates are in favour of Banks and Financial Institutions. Many of our clients are winning against banks on account of our guidance based on these fundamentals.


At times we are approached by Borrowers and Guarantors facing litigations in DRTs. Whenever we study their cases, one of the most glaring deficiencies are found to be poor and incomplete pleadings. In this respect the following aspects need to be taken care of:-


(a)    The person who drafts the pleadings must be having mastery over facts and mastery over law. We feel sorrow to add that the legal community like the Advocates are not fully aware about the facts. Even the litigant borrowers do not know the relevant facts in respect of bank litigations. Thus the whole case starts a built-in weakness on account of ignorance about the facts though howsoever one may be strong in legal aspects.

(b)    The relevant facts relate to banking, industry, finance, RBI Guidelines, various wrong doings committed by the banks and financial wrong doings, consequent loss and damages, various categories of such loss and damages etc.

(c)    The relevant laws relate to RBI Act 1934, Banking Regulations Act 1949, IDR Act 1951, SFC Act 1951, IDBI Act 1964, Bank Nationalization Act 1970, DRT Act 1993, Securitisation Act 2002, CPC 1908, Evidence Act, Law of Torts, Law of Damages, various RBI Guidelines, SICA 1985, Constitution of India, CRPC,  IPC etc.

(d)    One should have knowledge based on real practical experience in conducting trials including cross-examinations in the trial court.

(e)    It is only when one has got mastery over all the matters mentioned above, then only he should undertake drafting of pleadings of WS, Counter-claim, SA, various applications, affidavits, Review Petitions, Appeal, IAs (i.e. interlocutory applications) etc.

(f)      It is needless to mention that on every date perfect know-how is required so that results on that day do not go haywire than the correct course of action. Once again this is possible when there is mastery of facts and mastery of law including procedure of law. This is more so during trials in DRTs when practical knowledge of trials is very much required. It is needless to mention that knowledge of law alone or knowledge based on practice in High Court and Supreme Court will never help in DRTs. That is why we insist that the DRT Advocate should be a Senior Trial Lawyer who has proven knowledge and experience of several real trials.

(g)    On account of above and based on our experience of bank litigations for more than 20 years, we have evolved methods and practice on account of which several of our clients are winning against banks and financial institutions.


(2) SC fires the High Courts so that unnecessary writs are not filed particularly when Appeal under Sec 17 of the Securitisation Act are pending in DRTs  

The Supreme Court has asked the high courts not to interfere with the debt recovery proceedings initiated against defaulters, upholding the right of lenders to recover their dues. All alternatives available to the borrowers should be exercised before the high courts exercise their discretion to interfere with recovery proceedings, said a bench (in its recent judgment dated 26.07.10 in the matter of UBI vs Satyawati Tondon) comprising justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly, setting aside an Allahabad High Court order.

The high court had, in its interim order, stayed the recovery proceedings initiated by the United Bank of India on the plea of the guarantor of a loan.

“It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement (since 1964) of this court (the Supreme Court), the high courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies e.g. in the present context under the DRT Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) and SARFAESI Act (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002) and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders, which have serious adverse impact” the court said.

“We hope and trust that in future the high courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection,” it said.

“We are conscious that the powers conferred upon the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by apex court which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under article 226 of the constitution,” the judges said.


Our Further Comments


Our observations past 20 years is that on account of ignorance of the borrowers and guarantors facing bank litigations in trial courts, matters are driven to High Courts by way of seeking issue of writs under Article 226 of the Constitution or by way of Revision particularly when the proper course of action should have been Review. In fact had there been perfect pleadings and perfect adjudication on every date, such a situation would have not arisen.


In the above judgment, the SC has drawn attention to several of its judgments since 1964 when unnecessary writ petitions are filed and admitted in High Courts.


Our advice to our clients is that until and unless the facts involved are not judicially determined in the trial courts or DRTs, one should never approach High Courts otherwise the whole case would be lost.

DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 116th Issue dated 30th July ’10



(1) Our Client wins DRT Case of Rs. 90 crores – Copy of Judgment available on our web site


There has been tremendous response to above news item. Many persons approached us as well as the party for the copy of the judgment. The said judgment has now been made available on our web site drtsolutions.com and may be seen by clicking the link http://www.drtsolutions.com/new_page_3.htm


(2) No Plea against Sick Companies’ Revival - Important verdict of the Supreme Court


Mr. Radhakrishnan, one of our Associates and Senior Banking Expert apprised us about an important news item published at page 11 of ‘The Times of India, Mumbai’ July 12th edition titled “No plea against sick cos’ revival: SC” the extract of which is reproduced below:-


“ In an attempt to speed up activities under the SICA, the Supreme Court on Friday said it would not entertain any petition opposing moves to revive sick companies.

It was expected that by revival of the sick units, idle investment in them would become productive and by closure, the locked up investment in unviable units would get released for productive use elsewhere. Importantly revival was to help workers keep their jobs.

A bench comprising of the Chief Justice SH Kapadia, Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar said it would not allow anyone to put a spoke in any matter relating to revival of a sick company.

We want to make it clear to all the lawyers that if a company is getting revived, we will not interfere, the CJI said indicating that the apex court was in favour of giving revival of sick companies a chance.”   


DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 115th Issue dated 23rd July ’10


(1) Securitisation Act 2002 is a complete code


The recovery scenario for banks and financial institutions underwent sea change with setting up of DRTs consequent on DRT Act 1993 and NPA Act 2002 (i.e. Securitisation Act 2002) with important interpretations by the Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Bar Association in 2000 and Mardia Chemicals in 2004.


Apparently the banks and financial institutions thought to rejoice due to intended expeditious judicial actions but it was a double edged sword. Now they are repenting. They thought that recovery will enter into a fast mode but instead they are getting exposed expeditiously for the wrong doings and illegal acts which were not coming to light so early in civil courts where the recovery suits were taking 15 to 20 years.


Anyway if we examine thoroughly the scheme of the above mentioned acts, it would be concluded that the Securitisation Act is a complete code in itself. This presumes that the secured creditor has followed scrupulously all the applicable RBI Guidelines (which they utterly fail in almost all the cases), have acted as per the RBI Act 1934, Banking Regulations Act 1949 and Bank Nationalization Act 1970 in light of the Constitution of India and Supreme Court verdict of 1969 in the matter of Kripack. In almost all the case, the bank and financial institutions are totally failing to abide by the said legal provisions.


Keeping in mind the above legal framework, once the Securitisation Act has been invoked, there is no option or the alternative but to complete the adjudication till the end. In case the lender loses the Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Act ( as recently happened in the matter of National Flask when 4 banks lost recovery of Rs. 90 crores after a tooth and nail fight of 4 years), the only option is Appeal to DRAT and nothing else. Any other option i.e. issue of another notice, arbitration, invoking DRT Act etc. will legally fail and no recovery will be possible. On the other hand, the borrower may win his damage suit.


The bitter lesson for the secured creditor is that right from the opening of the account, they should be law abiding and help the borrower in time of need otherwise legal action will only boomerang on them. In most of the cases, since the borrowers are not having knowledge and resources, the secured creditors were having easy victory but those days are getting over. This will be proved by some of the future leading judgments.


(2) Some of the borrowers are winning their cases using the knowledge contained in our web site and weekly mails


The following mail is self explanatory:-


Sachin Thakker <sachin.thakker@gmail.com>

To Ram Kishan <ramkishandrt@gmail.com>


Date  Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Subject Re: DRT Solutions Weekly Mail - 114th Issue dated 16th July '10

Mailed –by  gmail.com

Signed –by gmail.com


Dear Sir,


I have been following your weekly mails since 2 years now and look forward to them every Friday morning. Indeed you are doing such a wonderful task which needs laurels and applauds .I am a victim of bank harassment since 2004 but only with the help of your weekly mails and your website, I have been able to update my knowledge and strongly fight my case with the bank whose position weakens with every discussion. Your site has also helped me with the judgments of various courts including Hon Supreme court of India, relevant to my case which makes my case even stronger. I sincerely thank you for your excellent guidance through your mails and site.


Sir, I sincerely request you to mail me the copy of the judgment of the case mentioned below in your today’s weekly mail about your client winning the case in DRT of Rs 90 crores. It will indeed add a lot of value to my knowledge and help me in my defence.


Though there is no court case currently going on in my matter as it had been rejected by the DRT in 2004 only as the lawyers too at that point of time were not fully equipped with the defence in Securitization Act. This resulted in the bank taking the physical possession of my residence. It was very painful for us as my mother was suffering from Cancer and my child was only 2 years old. The approach of the bank was totally inhuman. My lawyer advised to file a writ in the Mumbai High court which too was dismissed as the lawyer who was not well equipped with the right knowledge could not defend. This is a matter with a co-operative bank.


By my good luck I surfed through your website and following the advices regarding inspection of documents, various court orders and exhaustive knowledge on the said Act was able to find a complete chaos in my bank statements and wrong doings of the bank. The bank till date is not able to answer to them. The chairman, earlier administrators (as the bank was dissolved for 5 years) were not able to explain all the illegal doings in our accounts. We proved on paper and they have decided to settle the case from 90 Lacs to 23 lacs. Since we have suffered a lot, I have offered much less and I am sure they would do it as I have kept my papers ready to complain in the RBI and Ministry of Finance.


It was only coz of your continuous mails and guidance through them that i have been able to achieve this.


I sincerely thank you and applaud you for your efforts. It feels a privilege to be associated with you. Justice is not lost in this country coz of lawyers like you. God Bless you Always Sir.


Looking forward to the copy of judgment.


Thanking you,


Warm Regards,

Sachin Thakker. 


DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 114th Issue dated 16th July ’10


(1) Our Client wins DRT Case of Rs. 90 crores – Copy of Judgment available


Mr. B.K. Dubey, our Senior Advocate has provided us the soft copy of the said judgment and the same will made available to those who send us e-mail.



Our comments


This judgment must be studied by the DRT litigant borrowers and guarantors as well as their advocates. It proves our following long held convictions:-

(a) DRT is a trial court for adjudication of facts where procedural law based on principles of natural justice is applied.

(b) The said procedural law can go beyond CPC.

(c) In bank litigations, the facts are contained in documents.

(d) All the material documents must be discovered and inspected.

(e) All the controversial facts must be discovered. Even the tool of cross-examination may be required.

(f) The highest bank official including the Chairman and Managing Director must be impleaded as necessary party right from inception.

(g) Claim for loss and damages or counter-claim must be raised from the inception.

(h) The borrower will have to take full interest so that the matter is not left to the Advocate only. All the date must be attended. All the court proceedings must be watched.

(i) The important tools like Review and or change in court must be used.

(j) If possible experienced trial lawyer who has fought many suits from beginning to end involving damages need to be employed.


(2) Another instance of Govt Policy confirming our contentions as to why Chairman of the Bank must be made a necessary party 


This refers to the news item at Page 2 in The Economic Times, Mumbai dated 14.07.10 titled ‘MHA to hold phone cos CMDs liable for unverified J & K users’ The Ministry of Home Affairs have threatened to make the CMDs liable for any unverified mobile connections. A time of one week has been given to achieve 100% verification level otherwise face actions at the level of CMDs including cancellation of license.

This approach of the Govt validates our contentions that the CMDs of the bank must be made necessary party right from inception on account of several RBI Guidelines which are not being followed by the CMDs.


DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 113th Issue dated 9th July ’10


(1) Precautionary & Remedial   Measures when the Banks or  Financial Institutions threaten Physical Possession under Securitisation Act


Nowadays the secured creditors are paying much greater attention to recovery through Securitisation Act. At times they are misusing the tool of physical possession. Hence the following analysis will be useful to those borrowers who are threatened with physical possession. We have also mentioned the precautionary and remedial measures:-

(a)    Normally the banks should not take physical possession. Instead the symbolic possession will be better for both i.e. lenders as well as the borrowers.

(b)    Initially the banks are required to serve the prescribed Demand Notice u/s 13(2) of the Act, which provide a period of 60 days. This notice is required to be served to all the borrowers and guarantors. If the authorized officer has a reason to believe that the borrower or his agent is avoiding the service of the said notice or that for any other reason, the service can not be made, the service shall be affected by affixing a copy of the demand notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house or building in which the borrower ordinarily resides or carries on his business or personally works for gain. The secured creditor is also required to publish the contents of the said notice in two leading news papers one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality.

(c)    Where the borrower is a body corporate, the said demand notice shall be served on the registered office or any of the branches of such body corporate as specified above.

(d)    Where there are more than one borrower, the said notice is required to be served on each borrower.

(e)    On receipt of the said notice, the said borrower and guarantors may make any representation or objections to the authorized officer of the bank as per sec. 13(3A) of the act within the said period of 60 days. If possible, efforts should be made to include all the wrong doings of the bank as well as all consequent the loss and damages suffered. Since the said loss and damages are more than the claim of the bank, there is no debt due. As a result only symbolic possession could be taken but not the physical possession.    

(f)      The said authorized officer is bound to reply within a week to the said representation with due application of mind.

(g)    Upto the above stage, the secured creditor can not initiate any action for taking possession.

(h)    Just after the delivery of the said reply, the secured creditor may initiate actions under sec. 13(4) which includes taking possession also.

(i)      For taking possession, the secured creditor has to serve a notice in prescribed form and also advertise in two leading news papers of the locality where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt.

(j)      Normally the said possession initially should be symbolic i.e. on paper. But some of the bank officials for ulterior motives, threaten the borrowers for taking physical possession.

(k)    If there is such threat of physical possession, the following remedial measures are advised:-

(i)                  As soon as one comes to know about the said threat, communication must be made to the bank higher officials such as the Chairman and Managing Director and other such higher officials with copy to the authorized official stating that as per law the proposed physical possession would by illegal. The relevant provisions of law must be quoted as well as the loss and damages due to wrong doings of the bank.

(ii)                On the spot a letter must be kept ready holding the visiting bank official responsible individually, officially and jointly responsible if they act illegally.

(iii)              Since the said officials may refuse to accept such letter, the borrower must arrange to have a video record by using a handycam so that complete interactions is video recorded and a CD made.

(iv)              Looking to such letter and video recording, the said officials will not insist for taking physical possession and may be satisfied with symbolic possession only.

(v)                The entire incident must be covered in writing and letter be sent to all concerned including the Chairman of the bank.

(vi)              Despite above, if the said official insist for physical possession, the same should be resisted being a illegal act.

(vii)            A writ may be immediately filed in the High Court only on this limited point.

(viii)          The borrower must go through various digests of drt cases wherein he will find several judgments favoring him.


(l)      We have observed that under above facts and circumstances, the said threat for physical possession will be foiled. The basic philosophy behind physical possession is that the banks are not supposed to take and keep the properties with them. They must arrange auction, fix up the buyer and only after this they should go for taking physical possession. At this stage, if there is any resistance from the borrower, then only, they can invoke Sec 14 of the act.

(m)  The borrower may maintain a stand that he will file appeal u/s 17 within 45 days of action u/s 13(4), no physical possession can be taken till the said appeal is decided fully.

(n)    It is needless to mention that the said appeal must include loss and damages and being akin to a civil suit (as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mardia Chemicals) must be fought thoroughly by experienced trial lawyer. Such contest will definitely take several years due to inherent legal process as well as due to resistance by the usual tendency of the bank bureaucracy to deny and fight upto the highest court.

(o)    With above approach, several of our clients are in a strong position against the bank. Ultimately in one case as reported in the last weekly mail, one of our clients even won the Securitisation Appeal against 4 banks, the amount involved being more than Rs. 90 crores.  


(2) It is not what happens to us that hurts us. It is our response that hurts us


Mr. N.K. Sharma, ex-GM(Law) has sent us the following useful story:-


On his first day in office, as President Abraham Lincoln entered to give his inaugural address, one man stood up. He was a rich aristocrat. He said, “Mr. Lincoln, you should not forget that your father used to make shoes for my family.” And the whole Senate laughed; they thought they had made a fool of Lincoln.

But certain people are made of a totally different mettle. Lincoln looked at the man directly in the eye and said, “Sir, I know that my father used to make shoes for your family, and there will be many others here, because he made shoes the way nobody else can.

He was a creator. His shoes were not just shoes; he poured his whole soul into them. I want to ask you, have you any complaint? Because I know how to make shoes myself. If you have any complaint I can make you another pair of shoes. But as far as I know, nobody has ever complained about my father’s shoes. He was a genius, a great creator and I am proud of my father”.

The whole Senate was struck dumb. They could not understand what kind of man Abraham Lincoln was. He was proud because his father did his job so well that not even a single complaint had ever been heard.

Remember: “No one can hurt you without your consent.”

“It is not what happens to us that hurts us. It is our response that hurts us.”

DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 112th Issue dated 2nd July ’10

(1) Our Client wins in Securitisation Appeal against 4 Banks in DRT – amount involved nearly Rs. 90 crores and a tooth & nail fight of 4 years

(1)     The PO DRT II Mumbai in his order dated 29.06.10 in respect of Securitisation Application No 33/2006 allowed the same asking the 4 respondent banks to redeliver possession of the properties within 4 weeks.

(2)     This has been most historic legal fight in DRTs for a period of nearly 4 years by law departments of 4 banks against securitization notices dated 30.12.05 and 02.01.06 for Rs. 64.44 crores  and banking aspects of Representation & Objections, NPA, Accounts, Inspection of Documents etc. 

(3)     Such consortium of 4 banks losing Securitisation Appeal fighting tooth and nail for relatively large amount of Rs. 90 crores is most significant.

(4)     The party came to us in 2006. We prepared their damage suit for Rs. 1904 crores which was filed in May 2007. They have been in touch with us practically every day. They worked hard in implementing our philosophy of perfect pleadings and perfect trial on every date. At times they had eloquent fight with their advocates and had to change them. They attended DRT conference at Indore in May 2008. They spread our message to their advocates and other suffering borrowers.

(5)     While on one hand, the said 4 banks have lost their legal battle for recovery through the tool of Securitisation in DRT, the party’s damage suit against the banks filed in 2007 is still continuing wherein the banks are already losing heavily. The case has come to ‘Striking of defence of the banks’ due to non-submission of documents for inspection despite repeated court order.

(6)     This case is a solid proof that a determined borrower can win against banks in DRT. It demolishes the myth that the DRTs favour the banks.

(7)     Such fight proves the power of knowledge of banking, industry, finance and law. Above all this affirms that in a democratic country, citizens have adequate powers and protection against the wrong doings of bueauracracy due to ‘Rule of Law’ being above all.

(8)     We appreciate the sincere and hard work done by our client at every moment of time and they rightly deserve such epoch making victory which will prove to be a mile stone in the history of banking litigations in the country. 

(9)     The party has sent following mail to us:-


From national flask ind. ltd. nationalflask@gmail.com

To ramkishan ramkishan@drtsolutions.com & ramkishandrt  ramkishandrt@gmail.com  


Date Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Subject MESSAGE 


Kind Attn: Mr.Ramkishanji. 

Dear Sir, 

We take this opportunity to thank you very much  for your timely guidance / suggestions during the proceedings of Securitisation Application in DRT.  Because of your guidance, we have succeeded in DRT. The DRT has allowed our Securitisation Application and directed the consortium bankers to repossession of the properties. You have given your best guidance for,

1.         application for  inspection of documents to bring facts on record,

2.         affidavits / rejoinder to put facts on records,

3.         other correspondence with the consortium bankers and,

4.         preparing the arguments,    


We once again thank you for your kind support.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,



(2) Cheating, Fraud and Perjury by Officers of Standard Chartered Bank in DRT - Assignment of Debt by State Bank of India held illegal

Following mail received from ’Corruption Reporter’ is self explanatory:- 

Corruption Reporter corruption-reporter@hotmail.com

To  ramkishan@drtsolutions.com  

Cc ramkishandrt@gmail.com  

Date Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Subject Fraud in DRT by SCB 

Sub:  Cheating, Fraud and Perjury by the Officers of Standard Chartered Bank in Debts Recovery Tribunal 

This is to report to all the Presiding Officers and Recovery Officers of DRT in India that Standard Chartered Bank(SCB) is purchasing debts from different Nationalized Banks all over India and substituting themselves in place of original certificate holders by fraudulently declaring themselves that “Standard Chartered Bank has obtained a certificate of Registration as a Securitization and Assets Reconstruction Company from the Reserve Bank of India, pursuant to Section 3 of the SARFAESI Act” and this way cheating with the Govt. revenue in hundreds of crores of rupees by false declaration of SARFAESI Act and thus paying stamp duty at maximum cap of Rs. One lac wherein the total assets value purchased are in thousands of crores of rupees.   

Assignment Deed dated 29.03.2006 based on which they purchased many accounts from State Bank of India, New Delhi in which the following frauds were detected by DRT-I, New Delhi ( Copy of Assignment Deed dated 29.03.2006 attached) 

In the Assignment Deed dated 29.03.2006, they have declared in Para 5(a) that “Standard Chartered Bank has obtained a certificate of Registration as a Securitization and Assets Reconstruction Company from the Reserve Bank of India, pursuant to Section 3 of the SARFAESI Act”. This fraud came to the notice of DRT-I, Delhi after 4 years when one of the borrowers of SBI highlighted this fraud after receiving reply from RBI under RTI Act that SCB has not been granted registration under Section 3 of the SARFAESI Act”  Copy of RBI reply attached. 

Signatures of Alternative Investment Associate Director, who is the executor of Assignment Deed on behalf of SCB namely Mr. Sarit Chopra are signed in capital letter, which he never used during the course of his working tenure in the Bank. Such type of signatures in capital letter “SARIT” is never being used by such a high positioned senior Bank officer. 

In the front page of the Assignment Deed it is noticed that although Mr. Sarit Chopra has signed on each page as executor of the Assignment Deed but the photo affixed on the front page of Assignment Deed is of some other person namely Mr. CNN Unni. 

DRT-I, Delhi has taken this perjury very seriously and passed an order against the Standard Chartered Bank and its officers (Copy of order of DRT-I, Delhi dated 19.05.2010 attached) 


Email: corruption-reporter@hotmail.com

DRT Solutions Weekly Mail – 111th Issue dated 25th June ’10



(1) Banks can not resort to ‘Physical Possession’ of the secured assets if the borrower intends to pursue remedy under Sec 17 of the Securitisation Act


Recently few of our clients who received notice under Sec 13(2) of the Securitisation Act expressed their apprehension that the bankers were intending to take physical possession of their secured assets. Our associate Mr. B.K. Dubey, Senior Advocate has his following opinion:-


(1)        As per provisions of Section 13(3A), the bank is duty bound to decide the Representation and objections with due application of mind and to communicate the same with reasons thereof, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the said Representation and Objections.


(2)        Normally the bank do not submit proper replies within seven days.. In that eventuality the banks commit violations of the law under which they have furthered their  actions against the borrower. Hence the same become liable to be raised before the DRT, by raising grievances in an application prescribed under section 17 of the Act.


(3)        The borrower is threatened by the bank officials to take possession of the secured assets. Such threats are much more in respect of residential properties which can be sold easily. In fact there is nexus between the bank officials, recovery agencies, valuerss and property dealers about which we have repeatedly highlighted in the earlier issues of the weekly mails.

(4)        Since the borrower has a legal right to get the actions of the bank adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal u/s 17 of the Act and till such judicial determination of the disputes between the Bank and the Borrower has been completed, there cannot be any transfer or sale of assets in favour of anybody except in the power and possession of the borrower.


(5)        The provisions for taking out physical possession comes only after sale and at the time of delivering the possession to the successful buyer. Hence, there is no need of any physical possession at the preliminary stage of 13(4). Any action for taking physical possession prior to judicial determination u/s 17 of the Act, would be an illegal, arbitrary action, closing the opportunity of the borrower for redressal of grievances lawfully under section 17 of the Act,


(6)        In many cases on account of wrong doings of the bank, the borrower has suffers huge loss/ damages, which are more than the alleged claim of the bank and such claim vis-à-vis the loss and damages suffered by the borrower has to be adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. Therefore, there is no debt due and until determination of any debt, all the actions of the bank are violative of law and hence the said notice issued is rendered non-maintainable and void ab-initio.


(7)        As per provisions of Section 13(13), the borrower is statutorily bound to not to transfer the secured assets by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business), without prior written consent of the secured creditor. Thus, there is no threat to the assets and they remain intact till judicial determination between the parties to the contract.


(8)        The legal rights of the borrower can not be taken away at the instance of the bank officers. They are not authorized to make any attempt for taking physical possession either by themselves with muscle power, or by making an application to the DM/CJM/CMM or equivalent authority, under the garb of provisions of Section 14 of the Act, prior to judicial determination of the disputes by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17.

(2) Management Principles now being applied to reduce ‘Govt Litigations’ which are nearly 70% of existing workload of Judiciary


Our associate Mr. N.K. Sharma, ex-GM Law has made a reference to the following news item:-

India to Cut Average Time for Courts to Rule on Cases by 80%

-June 23, 2010, 2:32 PM EDT


India plans to cut the average time taken by the nation’s courts to hear cases by 80 percent by reducing the number of lawsuits filed by government agencies.


The government plans to trim the time taken for courts to hear cases to three years from 15 years, the Press Information Bureau said in a statement yesterday. It will create a new department that will review government cases before moving court and increase pay for lawyers involved in its cases, according to the statement.


Expediting legal cases may help rebuild investor confidence after India slipped to 41st place, behind Mongolia, among the 183 nations ranked for protecting investors in the World Bank’s 2010 “Doing Business Report.” There were 30.8 million cases pending in Indian courts on March 2009, according to the website of the Supreme Court of India. Government agencies accounted for about 70 percent of the cases, the Times of India newspaper reported yesterday.


The government “must cease to be a compulsive litigant,” Minister for Law and Justice Veerappa Moily said in the statement. “While Government cannot pay fees which private litigants are in a position to pay, the fees payable to government lawyers will be suitably revised to make it remunerative.”


The National Litigation Policy, unveiled yesterday by the government, also aims to restrict the grounds for appeals and adjournments, as well as increase the government’s use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration.


Our Opinion

Ultimately the Govt has resort to the Management Principles to tackle the menace of huge pendency in the Indian Court. Since the Govt itself is the biggest litigant i.e. nearly 70% cases pertain to govt and statutory bodies and the attitude of the govt legal people is to continue to fight upto the highest court. On one hand the Govt fights using the public money against the public, the public is left to fight using its own money and time. As early as 1957, the law ministers resolved to minimize the govt litigations followed by criticism by the Supreme Court in 1971, 1976 and 2009 but none bothered. Now there is little realization.

Until and unless, the entire judicial machinery is studied and corrected by Management and Technological approach with a honest and sincere approach including continuous and periodical training of judges and advocates with a view to render real service to the public, significant results can not be achieved.   



DRT Legal Solutions


Attorneys at Law of Torts, Injury and IPR Claims

ContentsProducts & ServicesFrequently Asked QuestionsUseful Article-BorrowersUseful Article-GuarantorsRBI GuidelinesNotes-Law of TortsNotes-DamagesMiniArticles-Letters to EditorUseful Interactions with Clients & VisitorsSecuritisation Act-CommentsAbout Us-DRT SolutionsUseful Tips for DRT Advocates|| 138 NI Act Cheque Dishonour Cognizance Acquittal | NCLT, National Company Law Tribunal, BIFR, SICA  |  Video Interview - BS Malik, Sr. Supreme Court AdvocateLegal Forum of IndiaSuccess & Results of Our GuidanceDRT Orders in favour of Borrowers & GuarantorsNPA, Debt due, Rehabilitation of Sick SME IndustriesOur Replies to Queries  on Current DRT Matters, Court Decisions etc.Measure of damages & Calculations under Torts & ContractsVideo Interview - GC Garg, Ex-Senior Bank OfficialSolar Healing, Yoga, Projector, Rebirth etc.Swami Ramdev, Yoga Guru, Cure for All Diseases, Medical Science RevolutionCourt Technologies IT Presentation Video ArgumentsArchiveDRT Solutions Weekly Mail for Borrowers & Guarantors   All India DRT Conference 2011 at IndoreArticle by Ram Kishan on Management & Technology in Indian JudiciarySARFAESI Securitisation Securitization Actar SA NPADRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers


Contact Information :- Phones (India):- Mobile- +91-969-1103689, Off. & Res. +91-731-4049358,

Office & Residence - 205, Morya Palace, Opp Bansi Trade Centre,

5/1, Diamond Colony, New Palasia,



E-mail - ramkishandrt@gmail.com and ramkishan@drtsolutions.com

Popularity of our web site :- The key word for search of our website is 'drt'  or any phrase commencing with 'drt'  We are on the top in Google Search for 'drt' among 28,60,000 results globally. In most of the search engines like yahoo, msn, google, excite, altavista, mamma, alexa etc., To verify, you may visit www.yahoo.com, www.msn.com, www.rediff.com, www.indiatimes.com, www.altavista.com, www.google.com, www.excite.com, www.hotbot.com, www.123india.com, www.aol.com, etc. Our reference appears in www.economictimes.com, www.amazon.comwww.financialexpress.com, www.lawcrawler.com, www.findlaw.com, www.law.com, www.supremecourtofindia.com, www.supremecourtonline.com

(2) We have created a separate web site www.usindolegal.com which deals exclusively with our US joint venture enterprise for activities like BPO, legal BPO, DRT etc. This site has started appearing in the search results of Google, Mamma, Alexa and Yahoo.

Application of Law of Torts in claiming Damages from Municipal Corporations for demolition of structures, closure of shops etc:- In many parts of the country, the Municipal Corporations are demolishing structures like shops and houses which existed for number of years. The shops existing for number of years are proposed to be shut down. The affected persons should claim Damages under the Law of Torts, which would be substantial. It is learnt that in Delhi itself about 5 lac shops are to be closed down and about 25 lac persons would be out of jobs. All these persons should file damage suits in the civil court. Since the damages would be substantial, the suits may be filed as Indigent Persons. Since the damages would attract interest, the usual delay by the civil courts will not affect the final outcome. The affected shop owners may discuss the details with us on phone.

Our Articles for Borrowers and Guarantors:- Our articles on DRT matters have been published in the Financial Express. The All India Manufacturers Organisation in its famous web site www.aimoindia.org has reproduced copies of our four articles. These original articles can be searched in the archive of the Financial Express in its web site www.financialexpress.com Two of these articles have been reproduced in other pages of this web site. 

Useful link www.WorldVideoBusiness.com :- WorldVideoBusiness-WVB® is a business to business e-marketplace source of international trade leads, and tender opportunities from companies and government organizations around the globe.

About Us in Brief :-  (1) We specialize in DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) and NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) matters. As a whole you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions as well as matters connected with ARCIL i.e. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited,  We have a Joint Venture with an America based law firm for various activities like BPO, legal BPO and DRT. The details of the said American firm and the joint venture may be seen at the page - Our US Joint Venture with Anand Ahuja Associates or in www.usindolegal.com (2) For your all problems including those in DRT, please phone us or send e-mail. Please give your contact details along with your problems in brief. As a whole you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions.  (2) With our Legal Opinion, you need not worry about the Securitisation Act or other DRT matters or NCLT. Please visit the page Products & Services and Frequently Asked Questions (3) On account of our expertise in the Law of Torts and Banking and experience past 15 years, we can help you to submit suitable defence with winning strategy in DRT cases, Securitisation Act, Guarantors' defence etc.  (4) We need only copies of all available documents  to render our expert 'Legal Opinion' which will be quite useful and valuable to you particularly in DRT i.e. Debt recovery Tribunal. (5) We have also handled assignments for preparation of damage claims against Electricity Boards, Insurance Companies, Municipal Corporations etc. all on the basis of the Law of Torts.  (6) The DRT counterclaims is to be prepared well in advance so that it could be raised at proper time in DRT or other forum to safeguard the securities and assets. (7) Several DRT counterclaims drafted by us are being handled by different advocates at DRT Mumbai, DRT Delhi, DRT Jabalpur etc. Thus DRT advocates are available in these cities. Cases in other Debt Recovery Tribunals are under process. (8) This site is updated monthly mostly on every first Monday of the month or for urgent release on any day with latest material. (9) For further details about us, please visit the page About Us-DRT Solutions As a whole you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions. We hail from the place to which Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Acharya Rajnish belong and hence this site is dedicated to them.

Our this web site is dedicated to Yoga Rishi Baba Ramdev Ji Maharaj:- Our this web site is respectfully dedicated to Yoga Rishi Baba Ramdev Ji Maharaj whose method of Pranayam has cured even incurable diseases and thus has revolutionized modern medical science. For further details please visit our special page by clicking here Baba Ramdev Ji Maharaj, Yoga Guru, Cure for All Diseases, Medical Science Revolution

Site also dedicated to:-   (1) Swami Ramdevji, Acharya Balkishan and their Guru Pradumn Maharaj.

                                             (2) H.H. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Acharya Rajnish, the greatest gurus of all time www.maharishi.com, www.osho.com

                                           (3) Shri Hira Ratan Manek (HRM) for his pioneering work on Solar healing vide his web site www.solarhealing.com and forum at www.lifemysteries.com                                    

We regularly practice TM and SCI of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. We also regularly practice Hath Yoga including Pranayam based on Baba Ramdev Ji  Maharaj. We daily watch his global TV program on Astha Channel from 05:30 AM to 8AM and 8PM to 9PM Indian Standards Time. On Sanskar channel, we daily view the discourse of Pradumn Maharaj from 4 AM to 5:30 AM. Many chronic diseases such as Cancer, Parkinsons' disease, Polio, Asthma, Hypertension, diabetes etc. have been cured by the said method of Pranayam which can be learnt even by watching his program on TV. Since 30th March '06, we have started practicing Sun Gazing as prescribed by HRM.

                                    (3) Shri Satyanarayan Morya alias 'Babaji' for his praiseworthy service to our nation. Please visit his site www.artistbaba.com 

Disclaimer:- We have no branch or setup other than at Indore. It is observed that some persons are using name of our firm as well as name of our web site. We have not given  any such authority to anyone to do so. Under such facts and circumstances, if anybody suffers any loss, we shall not be responsible. If such instance comes to notice of someone, we may kindly be informed.

Last Modified:- Please see the top of the Home Page

Copyright © 2001-2023 - DRT Legal Solutions, India. All rights reserved.