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

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

 DRT Solutions - Success & Results of Our Guidance

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





Govt and RBI have framed Special Policies to help Borrowers affected by Pandemic Corona-19  The Pandemic Corona-19 has seriously affected the business all over the world. Government of India took special actions to help the borrowers affected by the said Pandemic Corona-19. The RBI constituted special Committee known as Kamath Committee which framed special RBI Circulars to help the affected borrowers. At the instance of the said circulars, the Board of the lenders had to issued special "Board Approved Policy" to help the assisted borrowers. In such cases, if proper pleadings are prepared, the said borrowers will definitely win their cases in DRTs. We have handled such cases. The affected borrowers may contact us on our M-9691103689.

DRT Cases particularly those who have just received notices u/s 13(2) or 13(4) will be greatly benefited if they ring to us at Mob - 9691103689 (from 11AM to 6 PM on weekdays:- You get instantaneous advice on the said mobile no.

Best Approach in DRTs for Borrowers & Guarantors :-  (1) If you are our client, our consultation is available to you at any time on 24/7 basis. (2) We encourage you to acquire basic knowledge so that you may interact with us as well as your advocate properly. (3) We insist that you must always be present in the Court along with your advocate. You get instantaneous advice on our mobile no. 9691103689 .

Safeguards under Sec 14 of Sarfaesi Act - Pl contact us on phone as soon as you received notice under Sec 13(2) of Sarfaesi Act, we shall advice you for necessary precautions and safeguards.

Defamation and Damages:- We specialize in the law of Defamation and consequent Damages. In 2012, we handled a major case of Defamation involving damages of Rs 1400 crores. At present we are handling a Defamation case involving damages of more than Rs 10,000 crores. The interested persons may discuss on phone at our mobile no 9691103689.  

Senior Citizens - Longevity दीर्घायु & Health Problems - I am 78 years young as on 01.01.2021 and my hobby is to maintain good health, rather becoming younger day by day. Recently I have published few important videos [ (1) दीर्घायु क्यों व कैसे (2) दीर्घायु उपयोगी चर्चा (3) दीर्घायु व घुटनों की समस्या (4) दीर्घायु व वृध्दावस्था के लिए अमृत है कीटो डाइट]  on Facebook and YouTube on the important topic of Longevity ie  दीर्घायु To reach to my the said videos, you may search ' Ram Kishan Longevity' or रामकिशन दीर्घायु in Google or YouTube.  My profile link on facebook is https://www.facebook.com/ram.kishan.777

DRT Judgments Favourable to Borrowers and Guarantors – Now Full text of such Judgments is being provided on this Web Site with Important Portions marked in Red  

For reference of such judgments please click DRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers

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

Entire Judgment reproduced vide link DRT Orders in favour of Borrowers & Guarantors


A Thrilling Success Story from DRT Madurai

(This story was attached with Mail dated 16.8.08 from Mr. Arun Murugan, Advocate, Madurai)


Dear Sir, 

Following are the facts: 

1.                 Our client is an entrepreneur, having 16 years of experience, started Mushroom Cultivation and food products, a National Important Agricultural Project by utilizing non-conventional source of energy in 1999 after undergoing training in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and Winrock International, New Delhi. This is the water conserves Agriculture Project for cultivation of agricultural product that encourage the poor rural agriculturists who are below poverty line. 

2.                 After the Technical feasibility and financial viability, the Bank sanctioned Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.12, 93,000 and cash credit Loan of Rs.3, 50,000 16.10.2002 at the commercial Rate of Interest of 14.50% with monthly rest instead of the lower concessional rate of interest with yearly rest, applicable to the Agricultural loan, infringing the RBI Guidelines and the policy of government of India which is categorically held in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra ( 2001 SOL Case No.637) in Supreme Court that reads:

Para 52:

…Reserve Bank of India has also shown its concern towards agriculturist loanees by devising separate policy to govern them and not permitting capitalisation of accrued interest on agricultural loans except on annual rest or when the loan/installment has become overdue. 

he is charged exorbitant interest with monthly rest not applicable to Agricultural loan and the alleged claim in the Demand notice by the Bank is a fabricated and it is denied it as debt. The judgement in Supreme Court Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra (2001 SOL Case No.637) is in the favour of the Appellant: 

Para 53:

          ….if the bank was claiming interest in excess of that permitted by the circular/direction of the Reserve Bank, the Court could give relief to the aggrieved party not withstanding Section 21A to the extent of interest charged in excess of the rate prescribed by the Reserve bank of India….  

The Bank has adjudged the compound interest with monthly rest instead of simple interest with yearly rest as per the RBI direction and the alleged claim by the Bank is liable for dismissal as per the judgement in the case Indian Bank Vs. Jems Metals (P) Ltd in DRAT, Mumvai (2004(4) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 19 

3.       The Bank regularly debiting in the account towards Insurance premium. In 2004, the entire project area and the semi finished and finished products is damaged and washed away due to natural calamity of flood and continuous Torrential rain, causing heavy loss. He made a representation to the bank for assistance as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines vide No. RBI/2006-2007/16 RPCD. No. PLFS. BC. 1/05.04.02/ 2007-08 July 2, 2007 which is the MASTER CIRCULAR - GUIDELINES FOR RELIEF MEASURES BY BANKS IN AREAS AFFECTED BY NATURAL CALAMITIES referred to Master Circular RPCD.No.PLFS.BC.10 /05.04.02/2005-06 dated July 10, 2006 incorporating guidelines issued to banks in regard to matters relating to relief measures to be provided in areas affected by natural calamities. Master Circular for 2007-2008 incorporating the existing guidelines/ instructions on the subject has been prepared and is appended. But no opportunity was given to him and due to which he sustained heavy loss.   

4.       He made many representations requested the Bank for the Insurance claim from the Insurance Company for the damages due to natural calamities and the Bank had not initiate any action till date and also for the rescheduling repayment. 

5.       The Bank freezed the cash Credit Account from 2004 without communicating the reasons to him was unable generate cash for want of need Based Working Capital, resulting sickness. 

6.       The Bank issued notice on 22.03.2006 after 2 years from the date of suspending the operation of loan Cash Credit Account. The various outstanding amounts mentioned in the notice were not reflected with details and they are incorrect to be claimed as ‘debt’. In response to this letter I as an advocate replied to the Bank on 16.12.2006 to furnish the amount with details as per the Act and Statement of Accounts. But the Bank failed to submit the same till date.  He paid Rs.1, 50,000/- on 30.06.2006 as per the promise of Regional Manager of the Bank for the renewal and rescheduling the repayment. But no reschedule or rephasement was given to him.  

7.       Instead of honoring the promise the Bank issued Possession notice dated 17.11.2006. He sent representation on 06.12.2006 for the revival of the unit by renewing the loan with lower rate of interest, applicable to agricultural oriented natural project. But there is no reply till date. Thus the Bank violated Sec.13 (3A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.  

8.       He filed OA(S).1/2008 before DRT Madurai, praying to grant an interim order of stay of all proceedings furtherance of notice dated 15.12.2006 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI. The DRT, Madurai awarded interim stay with condition to pay Rs.70, 000/- and he paid the same. Another Rs.50, 000/- paid as per the order of the said Tribunal in the subsequent hearing and thus complied both the conditional orders. The stay order was in force till the next hearing. 

9.       On 14-02-2008 the previous counsel named C.P. Raghavan was unable to appear as he held up in Coimbatore due to his urgent work on the particular day and he asked him to get adjournment stating the reasons.  Accordingly he appeared before the said Tribunal and stated the reasons for his counsel’s non appearance and requested for adequate opportunity for his earlier counsel’s non appearance.  Taking the advantage of his counsel’s non-appearance the bank counsel in an arbitrary manner in an urgent way pressed for enquiry on that day itself knowing the fact that his counsel was absent.  But the said Tribunal vacated stay for auction sale in spite of his valid reasonable objections. No opportunity was given to him and therefore a principle of natural justice has been violated.                  

12.     Thus there is foul play by the bank as when the question of facts rendered by the bank in their counter affidavit is in question there is real prejudice has been caused to him. And the bank who does not controvert the veracity of the evidence from or testimony gathered behind his back cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent event because the bank has not disputed the fact regarding agricultural loan anywhere in their counter, whatsoever they filed and not denied any of the facts in the interim applications clearly establishes the fact that the term loan is a agricultural loan.  The bank has taken this issue as a prestige issue and in order to succeed the case by hook or crook and on their whims and fancies has not given any opportunity for the recent agricultural waiver, where he has filed a typed set of pages regarding the RBI circular which was forwarded by the Reserve bank of India authorities concerned who had taken the matter seriously to give adequate waiver for the agriculturalist who come under the purview of the recent budget of agricultural waiver.  The bank has wrongly interpreted the fact of agriculture and no opportunity was given. 

13.     I technically pointed out that the loan is borrowed by him for purchasing the solar dryer machine only for the purpose of cultivating and drying the mushroom which comes under the category of the agricultural activity as laid down below in the tabular column defining the fact that in the code No. 01121 defines growing in open and under cover, of vegetables is an agricultural activity which categorically explains the mushroom cultivation and the code No.01404 defines the purposes of drying and summing up the code Number from No.01111 to 02006 is also an agricultural activity. 



14.     The rule of audi alteram partem was not given/shown and the bank using the order of vacation of stay in a arbitrary manner have proceeded further without obtaining any decree/order from the Tribunal for further sale of the collateral security and without following the rules and violating the leading judgment of the supreme court of India like Khem Chands case AIR.1958 SC 300 which categorically held that a fair and reasonable opportunity should be given to defend his case by adducing his evidence regarding the interest charged and disputed facts regarding the commercial transaction and also regarding violations of the RBI guidelines for One Time Settlement and other opportunity of getting rehabilitation assistance from the District Industries Centre, NABARD as part of DRIP and also from KVIC etc.   

15.     The bank has in a second time has issued the auction sale notice and and pointed out that the law does not say that the bank could give many number of auction sale notice they want under SERFAESI Act.  If once the notice has been stayed by the Hon’ble Tribunal and if the case is pending before this Honourable Tribunal, then the bank has to proceed further by getting an order from the Tribunal to do so.  But here the bank violating principles of natural justice in an arbitrary manner and also violating the Article 311 of the Constitution of India has published a notice dated 02-03-2008 and fixed the auction sale 05-04-2008.    

16.     That instead of honouring the promise by the Bank issued Possession notice dated 17.11.2006. Representation was sent on 06.12.2006 for the revival of the unit by renewing the loan with lower rate of interest, applicable to agricultural oriented natural project. But there is no reply till date. 

17.    I pointed out the following disputed Points relating to the facts and circumstances of the case which the Bank is answerable:- 

17.1.            The Bank sanctioned the loan as ‘Agricultural Term Loan’.

17.2.            The Bank charged commercial Rate of Interest of 14.5% instead of applicable 7% for loan for Agricultural products, infringing the RBI guidelines and the recoverable claim in the notice is incorrect and false, abusing and misusing the SARFAES Act.

17.3.            The Recoverable Dues as claimed in the notice of the Bank Dt. 22.03.2006 is a fabricated since it is adjudged with interest of non-applicable excess rate of interest as per RBI guidelines.

17.4.            The details of Principle and Interest are not shown in the notice issued by the Bank.

17.5.            The Bank has not considered either rescheduling the repayment of the loan or nursing the Agricultural oriented natural products of various schemes rendered by the Union Bank of India.

17.6.            As the Bank did not get the Insurance compensation from the Insurance Company as the act of non-feasance, negligence of Duty of care.

17.7.            The Bank did not initiate to get 50% of solar Dryer cost from Ministry of Industries and Commerce, New Delhi due to act of negligence of duty.

17.8.            The Bank failed to get subsidy of 15% as per G/O.Ms.No.41/Inds./MGII Dt.19.03.2006.

17.9.            The Bank failed to get subsidy of 5% as per G/O.Ms.No.506/Inds./MGII Dt.13.02.1991.

17.10.       The Bank failed to apply for Refinancing facility of 100% from NABARD. 

18.               Finally I took the stand before the DRT, Madurai regarding the recent Budget of the Union government for in February, 2008, the Financial Minster declared the waiver of Agricultural Loan and also directed the Reserve Bank of India to send circulars to all the Nationalized banks and other allied banking sectors for waiver of Agricultural Term Loan.  I found the Reserve bank of India circular vide No.RPCD.PLFS.101/05.04.02/2007-08 March3, 2008 dated March3, 2008 and sent the same to the bank.  As per Union Budget 2008-2009-Announcement of Waiver and OTS Scheme for Farmers in respect of all direct agricultural loans disbursed by bank upto March 31st 2007, and overdue as on Dec 31st 2007 and remaining unpaid until Feb 29, 2008 are covered under waiver and he is entitled to enjoy that benefit and to that effect as he applied waiver of entire his agricultural loan on through representation dated 10-03-2008, only shows the loan as agricultural loan. 

19.     Technically I filed all the documents before the said Tribunal such as the Pass book showing Agricultural Term Loan, Certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Agricultural University dated 05-02-1998 , Certificate issued by Tamil Agriculatural Uty and Winrock International New Delhi dated 22-12-2002, Notice of demand by the respondent reflecting AGRI TERM LOAN dated 27-10-2005, Receipt showing Agri Term Loan dated 05-05-2006, Receipt showing Agri Term Loan dated 19-05-2006, 30-05-2006, 13-06-2006, Master Circular Guidelines RBI for relief measures by banks I areas affected by natural calamities dated July 2, 2007, Circular issued by RBI vide No.RPCD.PLFS.101/05.04.02/2007-08 dated March3, 2008. 

20.     Further I took the stand that as the result of the Professional negligence, breach of duty Care, infringement of the RBI direction, Banking Law and SARFAESI Act, the Bank, cunningly commingled with external agencies tries to sell the property worth of Rs.45 lacs with the auction price of Rs.10.12 lacs for personnel gain. 

21.     Further I stated that he bought the loan only for purchasing the drying machine which is agricultural in nature as above mentioned and the bank has inordinately, had wrongly compelled him to give three secured assets where the two assets are house property which is itself fetches several lakhs and its valuation reports are also submitted before the Tribunal as a typed set of pages.  Leaving those properties the bank has intentionally wanted to grab the mushroom cultivation of 20 cents, who is having tie up with the purchaser named E. Periayasamy.  Mr. Periasamy is already inimical towards him and due to which he had filed a case against him before the Thuraiyur for criminal intimidation by way of getting order from the Madras High Court Madurai Bench three years before and only inorder to take revenge and also destroy his whole agricultural activity has intentionally involved in this case to grab the property. 

22.     Further I took a stand that pending all these applications the finance minister in the recent budget 2008-09 had issued complete waiver of the Agricultural loan.  Relying upon this Reserve Bank of India issued a circular to all the nationalized banks in India vide No RPCD.PLFS.101/05.04.02/2007-08 dated March 3, 2008 to give waiver.  Since agricultural activity is covered under the said scheme I filed another interim application before the DRT Madurai praying to declare complete waiver of the appellant’s agricultural activity in I.A.No.345 of 2008. Since no orders passed on all the above mentioned application I filed an memorandum of appeal before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai in M.a.No.295 of 2008 dated 02-04-2008 and on the very same day the matter came up for hearing before the DRT Madurai where I filed a memo in the open Tribunal stating the fact of filing MA before the DRAT Madurai.   As the day on which the auction sale was fixed became holiday the auction was rescheduled on 09-04-2008 at about 12.00 AM.  I sent a telegraphic message regarding the filing of appeal before the DRAT Chennai also. Again I approached the Hon’ble High court Madurai Bench in W.P.3791 of 2008 and sought for the relief of agricultural waiver but the Hon’ble High court has ordered that the relief sought for could not considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same was dismissed. 

23.     I filed appeal before the DRAT came up for hearing on stay application on 09-04-2008 and the stay was granted around 11.00 A.M and liberty was granted by the Hon’ble Judge to give telegraphic message of the order to the bank, the same was sent intimating the stay of auction sale by the DRAT.  Immediately when he received the message regarding stay, he gave a letter to the Branch Manager at about 11.20 AM on 09-04-2008 in person and a telegram to that effect is also sent to the authorized officer, Coimbatore and also to the higher officials concerned on 09-04-2008 at about 11.45 AM.  But the bank branch manager along with the local rowdy elements by getting illegal gratification of several lakhs from the purchaser who are hand in glow with each other in a indirect collusion with the bank the purchasers named E. Periasamy who are very close with them.  They after getting huge bribe amount of several lakhs from the purchaser who is very known to them had undervalued the appellant’s property for only Rs.10, 12,000/-, where the worth of the property as per the authorized licensed valuer is Rs.33 lakhs and above.  The Branch Manager named Viramani and others had committed a fraud on our client for wrongful gain and undervalued the whole property situated at a Plot No.86/9, Muthayapalayam Village, Perumal Malai Adivaram, Thuraiyur and in a very urgent manner dishonestly and fraudulently without accepting the letter and telegram sent through court and also without obeying the same conducted the auction at 1.00 PM.  Not only the bank auctioned the property but also confirmed the sale violating the SERAESI Act and DRT Rules and the bank sent a letter to that effect dated 02-05-2008. 

24.     Aaggrieved upon the illegal activities of the branch manager and the authorized officer who are public servant, the I sent a telegram to the Superintendent of police, Trichy District on 09-04-2008 and also to the Inspector of police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Trichy District for illegally conducting the auction sale after getting huge bribe of several lakhs where the worth of the property is Rs.33 lakhs and above and also for not obeying the stay orders of the appellate Tribunal and also defrauding him and their family members which are punishable under Sec.166, 167, 403, 406, 409, 415, 417, 418, 420, 425, 463, 464, 465 and 120(b) read with Sec 34 of IPC.  Both the bankers have taken the law in their own hand.  The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur PS, after receiving the complaint against the erring bankers for their unlawful activities and cheating for committing the above said offences gave a police receipt vide No 113 of 2008 dated 10-04-2008. And after finding the real facts of the illegal activities and since no actions has been taken by them I sent a detailed complaint to the higher officials concerned on 10-04-2008 also.   

25.     I filed the direction petition before the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High court in Crl.O.P.No.4526 of 2008 dated 28-04-2008 praying to direct the police to register a case based on the complaint dated 10-04-2008 and file a final report.   The Hon’ble High Court directed to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate court for getting proper relief as per law under Sec 156(3) CrP.C and also based on the judgment laid down in Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab where no sanction u/s.197 is required for offences under Sec.420,467, 468, 471 and 120 (b).  

26.     As per the direction of Hon’ble High court, I filed this petition seeking the relief to forward his complaint to the Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Trichy and direct him to register a case upon her complaint dated 10-04-2008 against the accused.  Accordingly the Judicial Magistrate Thuraiyur has passed an order to investigate and register a case. 

Finally after continuous representation and reply to take immediate action against the culprits involved in endangering the banking sector and grant waiver in lieu of the waiver of Agricultural Loan of recoverable debt as per the Circular issued by RBI vide No.RPCD.PLFS.101/05.04.02/2007-08 dated March3, 2008 and consequently direct the Bank to terminate all the process of action taken by them now and in future under  SARFAESI Act, or any other act for the mortgaged properties including sale and transfer of mortgaged property. 

Here it has to be noted that the neither DRT not DRAT and High Court understood the waiver as per the RBI.  But finally the bank advocate informed me that the bank has decided to give the waiver and sent a letter.  The Abstract of Letter is: 


Head Office:239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -21 

To,                                                                                  06/08/2008

M/s. Madura Mushrooms


Sub: Agricultural debt waiver & debt relief scheme 2008.

As per the recent government guidelines for waiver/relief of agricultural loans under agricultural debt waiver & debt relief scheme 2008, we wish to inform that your account is also eligible for agricultural debt relief.  Accordingly you are requested to call on us for further details and executing the undertaking.  We also enclose the relief letter and under taking letter.  Kindly acknowledge and send us your confirmation. 

Branch Manager.

Union Bank of India  

This is the total story of our case.  Finally I asked him to file the counter claim to teach them the lesson but he is not in a stage to bare the expenses and due to the bank he is hospitalized now. I am now happy that I saved him by getting total waiver. 

Kindly advice me what to do next. 


M. Arun Murugan




(Mail dated 10.04.08 7:17 PM from Mr. G. Sundararajan, Madurai)

From: suman sundar [mailto:gurumira@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, 10 April, 2008 7:17 PM
To: Ram Kishan
Cc: arunm_advocate2007@yahoo.co.in
Subject: Re: Reply from Ram Kishan : From Sundararajan

Dear Mr. Ram Kishan,
The following is after correction and the same may be replaced with the existing updated after you screen after perusal.
Dear Mr. Ram Kishan,
There is a success story!
I have already forwarded to you for case study and it appeared in your web site. I reproduce the same below:
 Case History:
  1. Agricultural Product of Mushroom Cultivation by utilizing non-conventional source of energy.
  2. The Bank sanctioned Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.12.30laqcks and C.C Loan of Rs.3.50 lacs in 2002. But the bank charged commercial rate of interest of 14.50% instead of applicable rate of interest around 7%.
  3. In the Statement of account it is mentioned ATL.
  4. The bank issued possession notice in 2007 under SERFAESI Act.
  5. The Defendant filed O.A challenging possession notice.
  6. Tribunal granted conditional stay order of paying Rs.70,000. In another hearing the Tribunal passed another conditional order of Rs.50.000. Both the orders are compiled and the stay was forced till next hearing.
  7. In the sanctioned letter Agricultural loan is not mentioned. But in the Statement of Account and other communication documents, ATL (Agricultural Term Loan) is written.
  8. Sr. Counsel (Not Mr. Arun Murugan) was unable to appear on 14.02.08 and the Appellant (the entrepreneur) represented for adjournment and to give an opportunity for the appearance of the Sr. Counsel later date.
  9. Exploiting this advantage the bank counsel demanded the enquiry and the Tribunal vacated the stay without giving opportunity to the defendant’s request during the hearing.
  10. The bank tries to sell the property for Rs.15 lacs for the mortgaged Agricultural property valued Rs.45 lacs as per the licensed charted Engineer.
  11. Subsequently Mr. Arun Murugan filed I.A to give an opportunity as per the citation Khem Chands case AIR.1958 SC 300 and Swarna Lata Ghosh Vs. H.K. Banerjee 1969 AIR 1167.
  12. Also prayed for waiver of Agricultural Loan declared in the Parliament during Budget session by the Financial Minister. Also send application for the waiver of the agricultural loan to the Bank with registered post with acknowledgement with copy to Regional Office of the bank.
  13. In the last hearing Mr. Arun Murugan appeared, challenged and had healthy argument with P.O that the unit got Agricultural Term Loan and not commercial loan. He adduced that the Mushroom cultivation is the agricultural product declared as per RBI and report from Agricultural College, Coimbatore.
P.O and the bank lawyer are nonplused and the bank is so confident and strong impression that they will get the recovery certificate in the same day. They did not expect and unaware of the other front of attack from Mr. Arun Murugan. The Sr. Counsel of the entrepreneur appearing for this case for the past one year appreciated Mr. Arun Murugan about his technical talent and changed the stands taken by P.O in favour of the bank.
  1.  Today 27.03.08, the hearing came and Mr. Arun Murugan represented and reiterated that the loan is sanctioned Agricultural Loan and the claim by the bank is in commercial nature and null and void. The P.O reprimanded the counsel of the bank who misleads P.O that the unit is SSI unit and attracts commercial loan. But the bank fails to produce any evidence. They also told that they need not adduce any evidence under SERFAESI Act. P.O got angry and directed that it is essential to produce evidence even under SERFAESI Act. The bank also stated that the unit produced SSI certificate and is not entitled under Agricultural Loan Scheme.  He also told the bank is producing only the Statement of Accounts and this not sufficient for adjudication. He directed the bank to produce all documents as per the request of Mr.Arun Murugan.
The above material was already forwarded and updated in your web site.
The proceedings after:
A thrilling Success Story:
During the first week of April, three IAs are filed:
bullet Review Petition for the order issued to vacate the stay as per the advice of Mr.Ramkishan.
bullet Stay Petition for Auction Sale.
bullet Set-aside Petition.
bullet The hearing is posted on 02.04.08 and DRT ordered to file written Petition specifically on that Day of hearing by both the bank and borrower.
bullet In anticipation of order, not to be in favour of the borrower, we filed emergency appeal in DRAT, Chennai on 02.04.08 challenging the order issued by DRT/Madurai to vacate the stay for action sale due on 07.04.08.
bullet A detailed written Argument was filed on 02.04.08 in DRT with a memo that an appeal is filed in DRAT. P.O stated ‘Let the borrower get whatever be the order from DRAT’ and he was silent to issue order for these three IAs. Order is reserved.
bullet Surprisingly P.O/DRT/Madurai issued the dismissal order the same day on 02.04.08 for all three IAs without any reasons but mentioning DRT is not satisfied.
bullet Telegrams are sent to the bank about the appeal in DRAT to stop auction sale and any action is at the risk of the bank.
bullet After mentioning on 04.04.08, DRAT listed appeal on 09.04.08 since there is no sitting on 07.04.08.
bullet The due auction sale falls on 07.04.08, a declared Holiday and the Bank published the auction sale on 09.04.08 without 30 days notice from 07.04.08 which is mandatory for the next auction sale.
Thrilling Melting Moment:
·        DRAT granted stay at 11.30 on 09.04.08 till 09.05.08.
·        The message is passed from Chennai to the borrower who is in Trichy.
·        Telegrams and letters are sent to higher authorities of the bank the same time before 12 noon on 09.04.08.
·        Bank officials and the auctioneers assembled at the scheduled time 12.00 noon.
·        A formal letter is handed over to the authorized officer of the bank by the borrower through an advocate before 12 noon. The bank officials informed they have not received any order of DRAT.
·        The advocate of the borrower informed that letters were sent to the higher officials of the bank and if they perform the auction, it is at their own risk by disobeying the order of the Applet Tribunal.
·        The fax message about the order of DRAT was sent telegraphically as per the order of DRAT to the bank before the time of auction sale on 09.04.08. The counsel for the borrower approached the authorized officer before the time of auction sale and handed over the message about the order of Stay to stop auction on 09.04.08 by DRAT. The bank official declined to accept the representation of the counsel of the borrower. The auction sale was conducted instead of cancellation.
·        We planned to file contempt of Court and lodge criminal complaint against the authorized officer and the bidder for taking action abnormally low price than the higher value, certified by the licensed valuer.
·        This is the success story of the Team work, spearheaded by the dynamic young advocate Mr. Arun Murugan,
·        We are thanking Respected Mr. Ram Kishan for his timely assistance and guidance.
The dedication of Mr. Arun Murugan and the will of safe guarding the interest of the borrower against the mighty bank, by applying the rights, given as per the Law of the Land in right time, are highly commendable with the assistance of Mr. Ram Kishan. 
Mr. Arun Murugan honoured the trust extended by the borrower and he succeeded by taking appropriate action in different places Madurai, Chennai and Trichy at a time for this case..

horizontal rule

Our Client settles at less than 5% of dues due to impact of counter-claim against Bank:- This is just for your information that one of our clients have settled with the bank for amount less than 5% of the total dues vide State Bank of Mysore vs. Akasha Textiles, OA No - 3163/2000 in DRT-II Mumbai. Such settlement could be possible because of the impact of counter-claim as may be seen from the client’s mail reproduced below:-  

-----Original Message-----
From: vulcan22@vsnl.com [mailto:vulcan22@vsnl.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:46 PM
To: ramkishan@drtsolutions.com

Dear Shri Ram Kishan,

Trust this finds you fine.

I am writing to you after a long delay. This is to inform you that the SBM DRT case has been settled. Finally the bank came around. I paid Rs. 62 lacs against the suit amount of Rs. 8.65 crore in Sept.2000. It took bank to close the case in 6.5 years. On 20th March 2007, SBM withdrew the OA and I counterclaim. Charge has been released and form 17 filed.

There is no denying that the bank came under pressure to settle because of Counter Claim. Auditors had raised this issue in their report for possible claim for Rs.1158 crore. Credit goes to you solely to compile material and backing me with solid support.

I once again thank you for the trouble that you have taken  for me.

With best regards,

Yours Sincerely,



Important Victory of Our Client against Bank:- One of our important clients at Chandigarh who filed damage suit of Rs. 1825 crores against a public sector Bank on 13.01.05 registered an important victory on 03.03.07 when the Court waived the entire court fee despite all opposition by the defendant Bank. The alleged dues of the Bank are Rs. 30 crores. Since the damages are much more than the alleged claim of the bank, no recovery action can be executed till the said damage suit is finally decided. The usual delay in the litigation does not affect our client as the damages are increasing day by day due to interest charges at rate which is much higher than the increase in the alleged claim of the bank. The said damage suit was drafted by us and all necessary advice and guidance was provided on all dates of proceedings.

Counter-claim is the only defence for the borrowers against Notice under Securitisation Act and or Original Application under the DRT Act:- Under the present provisions of law, the only legal defence for the borrowers is Counter-claim giving quantum of loss and damages suffered due to wrong doings of the lenders. The pleadings must be prepared by a person having mastery of facts and mastery of law. The documents such as project report, application for financial assistance, loan sanction letters, correspondence, balance sheets, annual reports need to be referred to properly keeping in view the law of pleadings, law of torts, law of damages, principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. If you are unable to get such pleadings prepared, our professional services may be utilized. With our drafting of pleadings, you get additional advantage of expert advice during course of litigation from beginning to end. Since our clients are from all parts of the country and due to our focussed attention, you get complete and exhaustive guidance. All our clients are having upper hand over the lenders. In many cases the lenders have come forward to waive total interest and settle at fraction of the principal amount. In one of the case the proposal of the lender is waive the total claim provided the borrower withdraws the damage claim, which the borrower has declined.

Many of our clients and visitors of this web sites desired to know the success and results of counter-claims prepared by us. Keeping in view, their desires, this special page has been introduced. In this respect, the progress is as under:-

(1) The provision of counter-claims in DRT Act 1993 was specifically introduced only in 2001. We started preparing the counter-claims in the year 2002.

(2) We need only documents and brief history of the case. The documents must contain the project report, sanction letters, correspondence, balance sheets, appraisal reports if any etc. With such inputs we prepare the entire pleadings as well as the counter-claim in money value. Since we have long experience in this line and are handling cases from all over the country, we have acquired specialization and expertise in preparing the counter-claims based on law of torts. We have introduced the application of the law of torts in banking cases for the first time in the country. Even top law firms and Supreme Court Advocates are awarding contracts to us to prepare the counter-claims as it is not possible for them to prepare the same based on the technical documents like project reports and balance sheets keeping in view the provisions of law including the law of torts and law of damages.

(3) Past several years, the counter-claims prepared by us are under adjudication in various DRTs and civil courts in the country. In most of the cases, the bankers are finding difficult to submit their replies or written statements to the counter-claims prepared by us. In some case, they have requested extension after extension of time. In many cases, the bankers have come forward for settlements. It is worthwhile to mention following specific cases. The names of the parties, banks and place have not been mentioned due to obvious reasons. If some one specifically approaches to us to have the details, we shall provide the same after satisfying that such information will not be misused. The success and results of the counter-claims prepared by us are as under:-

Case Mark - 05/Mal/Cha/1825

The borrower filed a damages suit of Rs. 1825 crores against a public sector bank in civil court in January '05. The bank dues are stated to be nearly Rs. 30 crores for an industrial finance. It is learnt that the bank sought the best legal advice in the country. Accordingly the bank approached the borrower for settlement. The proposal of the bank was that the entire bank dues would be waived as well as the entire property under mortgage or hypothecation would be freed. The borrower flatly refused and preferred to contest the counter-claim in the court of law. This counter-claim was drafted by us and was thoroughly scrutinized by the borrower from all angles by best legal brains of the country. The client registered an important victory when the Court waived the court fee and declared the plaintiffs Indigent Persons. Now the bank cannot execute any recovery action till this damage suit is finally decided.


.Case Mark - 02/Kal/Ind/1834

The borrower filed a counter-claim of Rs. 1834 crores against a public sector bank in DRT in 2002. The bank took considerable time of several months to reply to the said counter-claim. In desperation, the bank has appointed a very senior Supreme Court advocate to contest the case in DRT. The bank being one of the biggest bank in the country has most experienced law department as well as large numbers of most competent and experienced lawyers as counsels for DRTs, even then one of the most senior Supreme Court advocate has been assigned the task of contesting in the most lower court of DRT. This counter-claim was drafted by us at the stage when the bank was went upon closing the factory and taking over the personal properties of the borrower and guarantors in 2002 itself. Now due to the counter-claim, the bank has been restrained from all such actions as since the counter-claim is much larger than the alleged debt and hence there is no debt due.


.Case Mark - 04/Gar/Mum/1030

The borrower filed his written statement in January '03. It was drafted by one of the leading law firms. No counter-claim was set up. The case came up for final hearing. At this stage the borrower came to us whether they can raise their counter-claim. We examined the documents. Since in practically every case, the counter-claim can be filed, we took up this case and in order to have breathing time for drafting and filing the counter-claim, we prepared few interim applications which were taken up for adjudication. In the meantime we prepared the counter-claim of Rs. 1030 crores. There were few rounds of settlement and hence the counter-claim prepared by us by held in abeyance and it was filed nearly after one year as the settlement could not be reached. Finally the counter-claim was filed in August '05. Thus the case where final hearing was due in November '03 and borrower was expecting decree could get not only get time due to our professional advice, the counter-claim was also filed as late as August '05. The said leading law firm was convinced by our approach and the borrower gained new confidence.


.Case Mark - 03/Aan/Mum/16


The borrower approached us in 2003. We prepared damage suit of Rs. 16 crores against a co-operative bank. The bank made several attempts under Securitisation Act to take possession of the factory and other assists. The borrower alongwith his advocates were in constant touch with us. The borrower filed a writ petition in High Court. During the proceedings, the bank even took possession of the factory. In the appeal to DRT, all the facts were submitted in detail as per our pleadings of the damage suit. The PO DRT ruled in favour of the borrower and ordered that the possession taken under the Securitisation act was illegal. The bank has been ordered to return the possession with costs. Such fight was possible due to our exhaustive pleadings as well as guidance during the litigation. The advocates also worked hard and argued meticulously at every stage of the litigation.

horizontal rule


DRT Legal Solutions


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 :-


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

5/1, Diamond Colony, New Palasia,



Mobile--969-1103689, LL-731-4049358,


E-mail - ramkishandrt@gmail.com

horizontal rule

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

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.

                                             (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.

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.