Kerala High Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable in SARFAESI matters where an effective remedy before the DRT exists under Section 17.

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act, DRTs must dispose of securitisation applications within sixty days, extendable to four months with recorded reasons, and directed strict compliance with the statutory timeline.

RBI’s 15-day banking rule mandates all banks to process key requests and claim settlements within 15 calendar days, strengthening transparency, accountability, and customer trust.

NCLAT held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied to extend limitation for a Section 7 IBC application where prior DRT proceedings were validly instituted, rendering such applications time-barred.

NCLAT ruled that a borrower’s redemption right under amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act ends once the auction notice is issued, rendering subsequent sales immune from challenge under the IBC even during moratorium, thereby safeguarding secured creditor actions and public auction integrity.

The Rajasthan High Court upheld DRAT’s discretion under Section 19(20) of the RDB Act to reduce interest granted by DRT, ruling that a reasoned exercise of such discretion cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that a bank-conducted auction of leasehold property without disclosure of the lessor’s statutory dues and mandatory consents is void, directing a refund to the purchaser under Rule 53 of the Income Tax Act read with Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act.

Karnataka High Court ruled that a Magistrate exercising powers under Section 14 SARFAESI acts ministerially and cannot impose conditions protecting third-party possession; such claims lie before the DRT under Section 17.

The DRAT Allahabad quashed a SARFAESI auction, holding that failure to issue proper notice and conduct fair valuation under Rule 8 renders the sale void and the creditor’s possession illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled on 15 September 2025 that a borrower has no vested right to a One Time Settlement and that any claim fails if the mandatory deposit under the scheme is not made.