DRT Legal Solutions
(Debts Recovery Tribunal Legal Solutions) is an India based
Law Firm since 2000 specializing in DRT, Securitisation, Sarfaesi & Defense of Borrowers in Debts Recovery Tribunals
Pioneer in Counter-claims and Damage Suits based on Law of Torts and Law of Damages
Phones (India) - Mobile - +91-9691103689, Off. & Res. +91-731-4049358
Home Page, DRT Solutions, SARFACIE, Counter-claim│Contents│Products & Services│Frequently Asked Questions│Useful Article-Borrowers│Useful Article-Guarantors│RBI Guidelines│Notes-Law of Torts│Notes-Damages│MiniArticles-Letters to Editor│Useful Interactions with Clients & Visitors│Securitisation Act-Comments│About Us-DRT Solutions│Useful 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 Advocate│Legal Forum of India│Success & Results of Our Guidance│DRT Orders in favour of Borrowers & Guarantors│Our Replies to Queries on Current DRT Matters, Court Decisions etc.│Measure of damages & Calculations under Torts & Contracts│Video Interview - GC Garg, Ex-Senior Bank Official│Solar Healing, Yoga, Projector, Rebirth etc.│Swami Ramdev, Yoga Guru, Cure for All Diseases, Medical Science Revolution│Court Technologies IT Presentation Video Arguments│Archive│DRT Solutions Weekly Mail for Borrowers & Guarantors │ All India DRT Conference 2011 at Indore│Article by Ram Kishan on Management & Technology in Indian Judiciary│SARFAESI Securitisation Securitization Actar SA NPA│DRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers │ DRT Solutions - Site Map for Borrowers & Guarantors│Transform India with Modi-DRT Solutions Suggestions│Laughter Yoga by Ram Kishan, Indore│Dr 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
Vijaya Bank versus B. L. Gupta decided on 16.03.11 by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi upholding that counter-claim can be filed in the application u/s 17 of the Securitisation Act in DRT. This is validation of our contentions past nearly 10 years. The full text of the judgment is given below with important portions marked in Red.
Comments by DRT Solutions :- Our further comments are given at the end of the judgment below.
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi
HON'BLE J.M. MALIK, CHAIRPERSON:
Vijaya Bank...................................................................................... Appellantt
B.L. Gupta & Ors........................................................................ Respondents
Misc. Appeal No. 148 of 2011, decided on 16.3.2011
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Sections 13(4) and 17
J. M. Malik, Chairperson.-The controversy in this appeal revolves around the question whether the respondents can file counter-claim in the proceedings under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant opined that the respondents cannot file counter-claim.
He explained that there is specific provision in the Recovery of Debts to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The attention of the Court was invited towards Section 19, sub-sections (8) and (9) of the above said Act. It was argued that. no such provision is provided in the SRFAESI Act. He also argued that Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act deals with the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of the Section 13 of the SRFAESI Act.
2. I see no merit in these arguments. The application under Section 17 of SRFAESI Act is to be treated as civil suit. This view finds support from the Apex Court authority reported in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004; (4) SCC 311 and latest authority by the Madras High Court in Misons Leather Ltd. represented by its Managing Director v. Canara Bank, represented by its Chief Manager, I (2008) BC 440 wherein it was held:
"8. Learned Counsel appearing for, the petitioners strenuously contended that in Mardia Chemicals's case, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act are in lieu of Civil Suit, which remedy is already available but barred under Section 34 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to the observations in paragraphs 59, 62 and 71 of the judgment, which read as follows:
59. We may like to observe that proceedings under Section 17 of the Act, in fact, are not appellate proceedings. It seems to be a misnomer. In fact it is the initial action which is brought before a Forum as prescribed under the Act, raising grievance against the action or measures taken by one of the parties to the contract. It is the stage of initial proceeding like filing a suit in Civil Court. As a matter of fact proceedings under Section 17 of the Act are in lieu of a civil suit which remedy is ordinarily available but for the bar under Section 34 of the Act in the present case. We may refer to a decision of this Court in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar where in respect of original and appellate proceedings a distinction has been drawn as follows: (SCC p. 397, para 15)
There is a basic distinction between} the right of suit and the right of appeal. There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may at one's peril, bring a suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever frivolous to claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But, the position in regard to appeal is quite the opposite. The right of appeal inheres in no one and therefore an appeal for its maintainability must have the clear authority of law. That explains why the right of appeal is described as a creature of statute.
62. As indicated earlier, the position of the appeal under Section 17 of the Act is like that of a suit in the Court of the first instance under the Code of Civil Procedure. No doubt, in suits also it is permissible, in given facts and circumstances and under the provisions of the law to attach the property before a decree is passed or to appoint a receiver and to make a provision by way of interim measure in respect of the property in suit. But, for obtaining such orders a case for the same is to be made out in accordance with the relevant provisions under the law. There is no such provision under the Act.
71. Arguments have been advanced as to how far principles of lender's liability are applicable. Whatever be the position, however, it cannot be denied that the financial institutions, namely, the lenders owe a. duty to act fairly and in good faith. There has to be a fair dealing between the parties and financing companies/institutions are not free to ignore performance of their part of tlte obligation as a party to the contract. They cannot be free from it. Irrespective of the fact as to whatever may have been held in decisions of some American Courts, in view of the facts and circumstances and the terms of the contract and other details relating to those matters, that may or may not strictly apply, nonetheless, even in absence of any such decisions or legislation, it is incumbent upon such financial institutions to act fairly and in good faith complying with their part of obligations under the contract. This is also the basic principle of the concept of lender's liability. It cannot be a one-sided affair shutting out all possible and reasonable remedies to the other party, namely, borrowers and assumes all drastic powers for speedier recovery of NP As. Possessing more drastic powers calls for exercise of higher degree of good faith and fair play. The borrowers cannot be left remediless in case they have been wronged against or subjected to unfair treatment violating the terms and conditions of the contract. They can always plead in defence deficiencies on the part of the Banks and financial institutions.'
10 We are afraid that the contention is totally misconceived. The provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act provides remedy for the borrower / guarantor / mortgagor to challenge the action of the Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal is required to decide whether the action of the Bank/ Financial Institutions, under Section 13 (4) is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, It is open to the borrower/guarantor /mortgagor to demonstrate before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that resort to Section 13 of the Act is not permissible by law. In a given case, the claim of the Bank/Financial Institutions may be barred by limitation or there may be cases, where the adjustment of the amount paid is not reflected in the notice or the calculation of interest may not be in accordance with the contract between the parties. Needless to say that all such grounds, which render the action of the Bank/Financial Institutions illegal can be raised in the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
11 Learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Counsel appearing for Banks and financial institutions fairly stated that all the objections which can be legally raised in the reply to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act can also be raised in the proceedings under Section 17 (1) of the Act. It would be for the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide in each case whether the action of the Bank is in accordance with the 'provisions of the Act and is legally sustainable."
3. In the light of the above discussion the petitioners/respondents can file the counter-claim I see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
4. Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the learned DRT forthwith.
Comments by DRT Solutions :- Our comments are as under:-
(a) Past nearly 10 years we have been telling our clients to include loss and damages (i.e. counter-claim) in their application u/s 17 of the Securitisation Act. In fact in several of the said applications drafted by us, we have done so e.g. in case of one of our clients from Bangalore in 2006.
(b) We have voiced our contentions in our web site, DRT All India Conferences held at Indore in 2008 and 2011 as well as in our weekly mails.
(c) In the above DRAT Delhi judgment, reference has been made to the SC Judgment of 2004 in the matter of Mardia Chemicals.
(d) As a whole our contentions are based on the following legal analysis:-
(i) The borrower as a citizen has fundamental rights of fair trial under the constitution of India and the said rights can not be abridged or curtailed by anybody or by any enactment including the Securitisation Act of 2002.
(ii) Since Sec 34 of the said Securitisation Act has barred the civil court, the said rights of fair trial for the borrowers are to be ensured and assured by the DRTs.
(iii) Since as per Mardia in 2004 and now specifically explained by the DRAT Delhi in 2011, borrower’s counter-claim has to be adjudicated upon by fair trial by the DRTs.
(iv) The DRTs may adopt expeditious and summary process to judicial determination of the bank claims but for the counter-claim of the borrower, full and exhaustive trial has to be conducted and carried out as he was entitled in the civil court before the said bar due to Securitisation Act of 2002.
(v) Since in most of the cases, we have found that the said loss and damages or counter-claim is much more than the claim of the bank, there is the situation of ‘No Debt Due’ and hence no recovery action on the securities can be initiated till the said ‘No Debt Due’ is judicial determined by the full and fair trial.
(vi) On account of above, the DRT Act, Securitisation Act and DRTs have limited role or function as it would have been better to improve the civil courts as a whole instead of creating new forums like DRTs.
(vii) We don’t want to learn from the experience of other countries. In UK, the tribunals were introduced in 1800. It took more than 150 years to find out correct solution i.e. by Sir Frank Committee in 1957.
(viii) As told by eminent justice Krishna Iyer that our courts are 200 years behind the courts in developed countries.. There are 73 countries whose judicial systems are betttter than us. The only and better solution is to improve the courts based on the system developed in those countries which have better judicial system.
(ix) Since the relevant institutions like Govt, Law Commission, Bar Council of India and Law Colleges are not doing desirable work (and they will not do for obvious reasons), the public has to come forward. While litigants in civil courts can not do much, those in DRTs can do much better as the Businessmen and Industrialists as litigants are much more competent and resourceful. Till the judiciary and judicial systems are improved, we cannot have real democracy i.e. rule for public, rule by public and rule of public as against rule by Bureaucrats & Politicians, rule of Bureaucrats & Politicians and rule for Bureaucrats & Politicians.
(x) The full and fair adjudication of claim for loss and damages or counter-claim will alone bring to light the wrong doings committed by the bureaucracy in the banks and financial institutions after which only the banks and the said institutions will improve and after that only the hold of the politicians on these institutions will come down. Thus the DRT litigants have a great responsibility and role to play.
DRT Legal Solutions
Contents│Products & Services│Frequently Asked Questions│Useful Article-Borrowers│Useful Article-Guarantors│RBI Guidelines│Notes-Law of Torts│Notes-Damages│MiniArticles-Letters to Editor│Useful Interactions with Clients & Visitors│Securitisation Act-Comments│About Us-DRT Solutions│Useful 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 Advocate│Legal Forum of India│Success & Results of Our Guidance│DRT Orders in favour of Borrowers & Guarantors│NPA, Debt due, Rehabilitation of Sick SME Industries│Our Replies to Queries on Current DRT Matters, Court Decisions etc.│Measure of damages & Calculations under Torts & Contracts│Video Interview - GC Garg, Ex-Senior Bank Official│Solar Healing, Yoga, Projector, Rebirth etc.│Swami Ramdev, Yoga Guru, Cure for All Diseases, Medical Science Revolution│Court Technologies IT Presentation Video Arguments│Archive│DRT Solutions Weekly Mail for Borrowers & Guarantors │ All India DRT Conference 2011 at Indore│Article by Ram Kishan on Management & Technology in Indian Judiciary│SARFAESI Securitisation Securitization Actar SA NPA│DRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers
Contact Information :-
Office & Residence - 205, Morya Palace, Opp Bansi Trade Centre,
5/1, Diamond Colony, New Palasia,
E-mail - firstname.lastname@example.org
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.com, www.financialexpress.com, www.lawcrawler.com, www.findlaw.com, www.law.com, www.supremecourtofindia.com, www.supremecourtonline.com,
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), Counter-claim and SARFAESI Act matters. As a whole you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions. (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. 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 more than 35 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) 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. (6) Several DRT counterclaims drafted by us are being handled by different advocates at DRT Mumbai, DRT Delhi, DRT Jabalpur etc. (7) This site is updated daily with latest material. (8) 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.
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.
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.
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 © 2001-2024 - DRT Legal Solutions, India. All rights reserved.