Chhattisgarh High Court: A plea can be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by a borrower even though the mortgaged premises belongs to the guarantor

Search News

In ‘Manik Mehta vs. UCO Bank’, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled that the filing of a plea before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)is permissible, even though the mortgaged premises belong to the guarantor.

A reference was made by the DRAT while supporting the decision of the DRT which held that the borrower was not entitled to file a plea as an afflicted party as the premises of the guarantor had been mortgaged. The appellate tribunal referred to Section 17 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which stated that any individual (including the borrower) distressed by any of the measures outlined under clause 13 sub clause (4) of the above act, is entitled to approach the DRT. 

The court dismissed the order of the debts recovery appellate tribunal and held that “The legislature intends to provide relief to the borrower by restoring the possession of the secured asset. Even if the term ‘borrower’ includes a ‘guarantor’, it does not exclude the borrower himself to disentitle him to prefer any appeal when the measures are taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002.”

Find Lawyer / Law Firm


Legel News 2017

Legel News 2016

Legel News 2015

Legel News 2012

Legel News 2010

Legel News 2009

Legel News 2008

Legel News 2007

Legel News 2004

Decriminalization of Section 377: Reality or Facade?

The Supreme Court’s judgment to decriminalize Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on 6th September 2019 was embarkation of a more egalitarian society. The verdict equipped members of LGBTQ commun More

Legal Consultation - Consult over phone, chat or send questions

Helplinelaw can set up your session with quality and experienced lawyers to discuss and resolve your legal matters. You can avail consultation in form of sending questions, phone call or webchat discussion  More