Prashant Abhilekh and Chandra Sen write about the Debts Recovery Tribunal and analyze whether it is allowed for the borrower to have independent proceedings go on, parallel to the ones in DRT or is it compulsory for the same to be transferred under the jurisdiction of the DRT.

Abstract

The Debts Recovery Tribunal was set up for the speedy recovery of debts as it was entitled to pass orders and grant remedies that may be granted by a civil court. One of the main features of DRT is that only the banks can approach the Tribunal to initiate proceedings of any kind which has been a case of raging conflict for the courts as the jurisdiction of the courts has been expressly barred under the DRT Act. As a result of this, the right of the borrower to seek remedy has become a bit unclear. It is apparent that the act does not provide the borrower with any rights to seek remedy under the jurisdiction of DRT which further means that the borrower is bound to seek remedy from the courts. But, it is ambiguous as to under what circumstances is the borrower allowed to do that? The paper seeks to analyse whether it is allowed for the borrower to have independent proceedings go on, parallel to the ones in DRT or is it compulsory for the same to be transferred under the jurisdiction of the DRT. It also examines the legal position of whether the borrower is bound to accept the remedy provided by the DRT or are they are entitled to an alternate forum of civil courts along with a right to institute an independent suit in the tribunal. It thoroughly discusses the provisions empowering the DRT and also explores the constitutionality of the same.