The Need For Special Law And The Need For Judicial Check
SARFAESI was enacted because Civil suits took 10-15 years. Object is laudable. Courts discouraged writs against 13(2) and said go to DRT. Section 17 scope was widened to cover all measures under 13(4). But law must also check power. Banks sometimes act arbitrarily. Allegations of undervalued sale, no notice, and collusion are common. If borrower has no quick forum, trust in system breaks. That is why High Court retains power under Article 226/227.
Supreme Court And Delhi HC On Tribunals And Judicial Review
Associated Cement 1965 recognized Tribunals as part of State’s judicial power. Delhi HC Bar Association 2002 said DRT is part of justice delivery, not replacement of judiciary. It also said Appellate Tribunal decisions are subject to High Court review under 226/227.
R.Gandhi Vs Union of India dealt with NCLT. Madras HC and SC stressed independence and judicial character of Tribunals. Same logic applies to DRT. Tribunal is not a Bank department. It must act judicially.
Real Problems In DRT That Force Borrowers To High Court
Borrowers list concrete grievances. Papers returned for minor defects. Bank proceeds with possession while 17 is pending. No stay because DRT says "deposit 50%". No Presiding Officer, so adjournments. In such situation, asking borrower to wait for DRT is asking him to lose property first and litigate later. That is not effective remedy. High Court cannot close eyes. It must intervene to preserve rights and ask Bank to explain.
Balancing Approach: When To File Writ And When Not
Writ is not for every default. If borrower has no case and only wants delay, High Court should dismiss. But if there is prima facie arbitrariness: no notice, wrong NPA, sale below market, or DRT is not functioning, writ is proper. Court can pass short order: "Bank to maintain status quo till DRT decides" or "Bank to show cause". This does not bypass DRT. It supports DRT and prevents irreversible damage.
Conclusion
High court writ sarfaesi d r t effective remedy depends on facts. Law says DRT is forum. Reality says DRT sometimes fails. High Court intervention is justified to prevent misuse of SARFAESI and to uphold fairness. At Nathan & Associates we advise: exhaust DRT, document Bank’s illegality, and move High Court only when urgency and arbitrariness are clear. That is how justice is balanced.
