Best DRT and DRAT Delhi – Bank Recovery and SARFAESI Cases Lawyer

Banks and financial institutions recover loans of ₹20 lakh and above through the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), and enforce security through the SARFAESI Act, with the DRT hearing borrowers' challenges. Delhi has several DRTs, and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Delhi hears appeals from DRTs within its jurisdiction. For borrowers and guarantors, these tribunals decide whether the factory or home stays with them and how much they must pay; for lenders, they are the main route to recovery.

This page is for borrowers, guarantors and lenders with matters before the Delhi DRTs or the DRAT. In short: banks file original applications for recovery and the DRT issues recovery certificates enforced by recovery officers; borrowers can challenge SARFAESI measures by a Section 17 application within 45 days; appeals to the DRAT need a pre-deposit of 50%, reducible to 25%; and debts that banks and financial institutions can recover under the RDB Act are not arbitrable, as the Supreme Court explained in Vidya Drolia (2020), though NBFC loans not covered by the RDB Act are often arbitrated.

Our network site, drtadvocates.com, covers DRT and SARFAESI matters in detail. This page is an overview for clients of our arbitration and commercial practice.

Is this your situation?

What the DRT and DRAT hear

DRT or arbitration?

Whether a loan dispute goes to the DRT or to arbitration depends on the lender. For banks and financial institutions covered by the RDB Act, claims of ₹20 lakh and above must go to the DRT, and in Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation (2020), the Supreme Court held that such claims are not arbitrable, because the Act creates a special forum with exclusive jurisdiction. So an arbitration clause in a bank loan agreement does not allow the bank or the borrower to arbitrate a claim that falls within the DRT's jurisdiction.

Many NBFCs, however, are not "financial institutions" under the RDB Act unless specifically notified, and their loans are commonly recovered through arbitration, with SARFAESI available to eligible NBFCs for secured loans. For such loans, the arbitration clause applies, and borrowers' remedies lie in the arbitration and under Section 34. See loan arbitration.

How we handle DRT and DRAT matters

Time and typical cost range

Our fees are agreed in writing at the start, stage by stage, and are not linked to the outcome.

Documents needed

DRT and DRAT forum guide

Section 17 applications

A borrower, guarantor or any person aggrieved by a measure under Section 13(4), such as taking possession or selling the secured asset, can apply to the DRT under Section 17 within 45 days of the measure. Grounds include defects in the Section 13(2) notice, failure to consider objections under Section 13(3A), wrong NPA classification, defects in valuation or sale notices, and, for MSME borrowers, failure to follow the MSME revival framework after Pro Knits v Canara Bank (2024).

The DRT can stay the measure, often on condition of a deposit, and can restore possession if the measure is set aside. The application must be supported by documents and filed within time; late applications face difficulty, though the DRT has some power to condone delay.

DRAT appeals and pre-deposit

Appeals to the DRAT against DRT orders must be filed within 30 days. Under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, a borrower appealing a Section 17 order must deposit 50% of the amount of debt due as claimed by the bank or determined by the DRT, whichever is less, reducible by the DRAT to not less than 25%. Under Section 21 of the RDB Act, an appeal against a DRT final order in an original application requires a deposit of 50% of the amount determined, reducible to 25%. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the DRAT cannot waive the pre-deposit.

Plan the appeal with the pre-deposit in mind. Where it cannot be arranged, a settlement may be the better course.

Laws that apply

How we work

We are a litigation and advisory practice led by Advocate BK Singh, with offices in Dwarka (New Delhi) and Vaishali (Ghaziabad), with a dedicated DRT practice at drtadvocates.com. This is what you can expect:

• Deadline control: 45-day and 30-day limits managed closely.
• Forum clarity: DRT, arbitration or civil court, depending on the lender.
• Settlement focus: realistic OTS proposals in parallel with litigation.
• Guarantor defences: contract law protections examined.
• Written fee terms: agreed stage by stage, never linked to the outcome.

Mistakes in DRT matters

Defending an original application

In an original application, the bank claims the debt with interest and costs, and seeks a recovery certificate. The defendant files a written statement, and may raise a counter-claim or set-off, for example for damages caused by the bank's wrongful acts, such as failing to release sanctioned limits. The DRT decides largely on affidavits and documents, under a summary procedure.

Common defences include errors in the account, interest charged above the contract rate, penal interest contrary to RBI rules, limitation, discharge of guarantors by variation or release of security, and defects in the documents. A careful reconciliation of the account by a chartered accountant often reduces the claim. The 2024 RBI directions on penal charges help borrowers for periods after they took effect.

Recovery officers and attachment

Once the DRT issues a recovery certificate, the recovery officer enforces it under Sections 25 to 30 of the RDB Act: attachment and sale of movable and immovable property, attachment of bank accounts, appointment of a receiver, and in rare cases arrest. The certificate debtor can appeal orders of the recovery officer to the presiding officer of the DRT within 30 days under Section 30.

Even at this stage, settlement is possible. Banks frequently accept one-time settlements at the recovery stage, especially where the security has been sold and a balance remains, or where the debtor's assets are difficult to realise.

Auctions and sale of secured assets

When a bank proposes to sell a secured asset, it must obtain a valuation, fix a reserve price, and give the borrower a sale notice of at least 30 days. Sales are usually by e-auction. Borrowers can challenge sales at undervalue, without proper notice, or in breach of the rules, by a Section 17 application. Under Section 13(8), as amended in 2016, the borrower's right to redeem by paying the dues ends on publication of the auction notice (Celir LLP v Bafna Motors, 2023).

Borrowers who can find a buyer at a better price than the reserve price should propose a private sale to the bank, which may agree with the borrower's consent.

Tenants and third parties

Tenants of secured property and third parties claiming rights in it can also be affected by SARFAESI action. The Supreme Court has held that tenants with valid tenancies created before the mortgage, or with the bank's consent, have protection, and that their possession cannot be disturbed summarily. Third parties who claim title to the property can apply under Section 17 as persons aggrieved. Such applicants should produce their documents promptly.

DRT and IBC overlap

For corporate borrowers, a bank may choose between DRT proceedings, SARFAESI, and an insolvency application under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT. Once a corporate insolvency resolution process is admitted, the moratorium under Section 14 stops DRT proceedings and SARFAESI action against the corporate debtor, though not against personal guarantors unless proceedings under Part III are started against them. See NCLT and NCLAT.

Practical points for Delhi clients

Our Dwarka office is in Delhi, and we appear regularly before the DRTs and the DRAT. For clients outside Delhi, such as in Ghaziabad, Noida, Gurugram or Faridabad, check which DRT has territorial jurisdiction over the district, since it may not be a Delhi DRT. Our dedicated site drtadvocates.com has more detail on DRT procedure, SARFAESI and settlements.

Wilful defaulter and fraud classification

Alongside recovery, banks may classify borrowers and promoters as wilful defaulters or report accounts as fraud under the RBI's directions. These classifications restrict access to fresh credit and can affect other companies in which the promoters are directors. In State Bank of India v Rajesh Agarwal (2023), the Supreme Court held that borrowers must be given a hearing before their accounts are classified as fraud, and the RBI's revised directions on wilful defaulters require a show-cause notice, a representation and a hearing.

Borrowers should respond to such notices promptly, with documents showing that any default was due to business reasons and not wilful or fraudulent. Orders made without following the process can be challenged in a writ petition in the High Court, separately from the DRT proceedings.

Lenders' perspective

For banks and financial institutions, the choice between an original application in the DRT, SARFAESI enforcement, and an IBC application depends on the security available, the borrower's status, and the likely recovery. SARFAESI is fastest where there is good security; the DRT route is needed for unsecured amounts and guarantors; the IBC route may suit corporate borrowers where a resolution is possible. NBFCs not covered by the RDB Act use arbitration and, if eligible, SARFAESI. We advise lenders on the route as well as acting in proceedings.

Interest and costs in DRT claims

Banks' claims in DRT proceedings often include interest at the contract rate, penal interest or charges, and costs. Borrowers should check that interest has been charged as the sanction letter allows, that rate resets were applied correctly, that penal charges after 2024 comply with the RBI's directions, and that costs claimed were actually incurred. The DRT can award interest at the rate it considers just. A detailed reconciliation often reduces the claim and supports settlement.