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.”