# Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 455
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-19
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 7466 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-jindal-v-debt-recovery-tribunal-anr-54048
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

1 All. Dinesh Kumar Jindal Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr.
455
25% of the remaining sum subject to which the recovery proceedings against the contesting
respondent shall remain stayed, also does not suffer from any error, rather it is an appropriate
course of action which has been taken by the Commercial Court and it cannot be faulted. As a
fortiori direction sought by the contesting respondent to refund the money which has been released
in favour of the petitioner cannot be passed. Accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any
merit in the petition filed by the contesting respondent.

Conclusion

90. For the detailed reasons recorded hereinabove Petition No.3886 of 2024, M/s Genebio
Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. through Director Arun Kumar Srivastava v. Paradigm Enterprises
through Director Ritika Pandey and others is partly allowed, whereas Petition No.5145 of
2024, Paradigm Enterprises v. Micro, Small and others shall stand dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 455
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7466 of 2025

Dinesh Kumar Jindal ...Petitioner
Versus
Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr . ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether Registrar DRT has no power to order appearance of the opposite parties before him to show cause
why the S.A. should not be allowed.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227; The Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,
1993- Rules -4, 5, 12, 22 & 23- A bare perusal of the DRT Rules makes it manifest that a
Securitisation Application shall be presented by the applicant to the Registrar of DRT. Subject to
the directions of the Presiding Officer, the Registrar has the power to fix the date of hearing of
the application or other proceedings and issue notice thereof and he has the power to dispose of
all matters relating to the service of notices or other processes, application for the issue of fresh
notices or for extending the time or for ordering a particular method of service on a defendant,
including a substituted service by publication of the notice by way of advertisements in the
newspapers. The Registrar has the power to receive all applications and other documents and
the defendant will file his reply to the application along with documents, with the registry.
Held- The Registrar DRT issued the impugned notice to the opposite parties on 11.11.2025, directing them to
appear before him on 17.11.2025. On 17.11.2025 the Registrar listed the matter for 01.12.2025 before the
Presiding Officer of the DRT. The present petition was presented before the Registrar Listing of this Court on
18.12.2025, i.e., after the S.A. had already been listed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT and the
grievance of the petitioner that the matter ought to have been listed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and not before the Registrar, had already been redressed on 01.12.2025. Therefore, besides the fact that the
petitioner's submission that the impugned notice has been issued without jurisdiction has been rejected, the
notice has not caused a failure of justice or grave injustice to the petitioner, which is a sine qua non for
maintaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India- Petition dismissed. (Para 10 & 20) (E15)

Case Law Cited
B. S. Hari v. Union of India: (2023) 13 SCC 779; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai: (2003) 6 SCC 675;
Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.: (2001) 8 SCC 97

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993

List of Keywords
Subject to the directions of the Presiding Officer; the Registrar has the power; to fix the date of hearing of the
application or other proceedings; and issue notice thereof; and Registrar has the power to dispose of all
matters relating to the service of notices or other processes

Case Arising From
Notice dated 11.11.2025 issued by the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow Securitisation Application
No. 1144 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Noel Victor
 Counsel for Respondent(s) :

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Suryansh Kumar Arora Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged a notice dated 11.11.2025 issued by the Registrar, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Lucknow (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the DRT') in Securitisation
Application No. 1144 of 2025. The notice reads as follows: -

"Whereas, in the above said case, the applicant has filed an application under Section 17
SARFAESI Act, 2002, Copy of the S.A. is enclosed herewith.

Take notice that you are hereby required to appear before the learned Registrar of the
Tribunal, on 17th Day of November, 2025 at 10:30 A.M. in the forenoon in person or by a pleader/
advocate to show-cause why the said S.A. should not be allowed. Failing which the said S.A. will
be heard and determined ex parte.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on 11th Day of November, 2025."

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Registrar, DRT has no power
to order appearance of the opposite parties before him to show cause why the S.A. should not be
allowed. He has submitted that the admission, hearing and disposal of S.As. falls within the
jurisdiction of the DRT, and this function should be exercised by the Presiding Officer of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, not by its Registrar. Fixing of a date before the Registrar to show cause as to
why the S.A. should not be admitted, would cause an undue delay in placing the matter before the
1 All. Dinesh Kumar Jindal Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr.
457
Presiding Officer of the DRT, which in turn would cause an undue delay in hearing and disposal of
the interim relief application of the petitioner and this delay would cause a serious prejudice to the
petitioner.

4. The petitioner has filed S.A. No. 1144 of 2025 before the DRT. On 11.11.2025, the
Registrar DRT issued the impugned notice to the opposite parties directing them to appear on
17.11.2025. On 17.11.2025 the Registrar listed the matter for 01.12.2025 before the Presiding
Officer of the DRT.

5. The present petition was presented before the Registrar Listing of this Court on 18.12.2025,
i.e., after the S.A. had already been listed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT and the
grievance of the petitioner that the matter ought to have been listed before the Presiding Officer of
the DRT and not before the Registrar, had already been redressed on 01.12.2025.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Court suggested that as
the grievance of the petitioner is merely regarding a delay caused in listing of the S.A. before the
Presiding Officer of the DRT whereas the S.A. has already been listed before the Presiding Officer
of the DRT and there is no pleading that any legal injury has been caused to the petitioner because
of this delay, the petitioner should contest the matter before the DRT and the question of
jurisdiction of the Registrar has become merely academic, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
insisted that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to issue the notice and an action taken without
jurisdiction can very well be challenged before this Court even when it causes no prejudice to the
petitioner.

7. The Court requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to raise even this plea before the
Presiding Officer of the DRT and to spare the time of this Court for being utilized for deciding the
matters of those litigants who have no alternative remedy, but the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he can approach the DRT only against an action of the bank under SARFAESI Act
and he cannot raise the grievance regarding a notice issued by the Registrar before the Presiding
Officer of the DRT.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since he is raising a question of
jurisdiction, this Court should adjudicate upon the same. Therefore, the Court proceeds to examine
whether the Registrar has no jurisdiction to issue a notice on a securitisation application filed
before the DRT.

9. For deciding the aforesaid issue, it would be appropriate to have a look at the relevant
provisions of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, which are being reproduced
below: -

"4. Procedure for filing applications

(1) An application shall be presented in Form annexed to these rules by the applicant
in person or by his agent or by a duly authorised legal practitioner to the Registrar of the Bench
within whose jurisdiction his case falls or shall be sent by registered post addressed to the
Registrar.
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) An application sent by post under sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to have been presented
to the Registrar the day on which it was received in the office of the Registrar.

(3) The application under sub-rule (1) shall be presented in two sets in a paper book
along with an empty file size envelope bearing full address of the defendants and where the number
of defendant is more than one, then sufficient number of extra paper-books together with empty file
size envelopes bearing full address of each of the respondents shall be furnished by the applicant.

5. Presentation and scrutiny of applications

(1) The Registrar, or, as the case may be, the officer authorised by him under rule 4, shall
endorse on every application the date on which it is presented or deemed to have been presented
under that rule and shall sign endorsement.

(2) If on scrutiny, the application is found to be in order, it shall be duly registered and
given a serial number.

(3) If the application, on scrutiny, is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal
in nature, the Registrar may allow the party to rectify the same in his presence and if the said
defect is not formal in nature, the Registrar, may allow the applicant such time to rectify the defect
as he may deem fit.

(4) If the concerned applicant fails to rectify the defect within the time allowed in sub
rule(3), the Registrar may by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register
the application.

(5) An appeal against the order of the Registrar under sub-rule (4) shall be made within
15 days of the making of such order to the Presiding Officer concerned in chamber whose decision
thereon shall be final.

12. Filing of reply and other documents by the respondent

(1) The defendant may file two complete sets containing the reply to the application
along with documents in a paper book form with the registry within one month of the service of
the notice of the filing of the application on him.
* * *

13. Date and place of hearing to be notified (1) The Tribunal shall notify the parties the
date and place of hearing of the application in such a manner as the Presiding Officer may by
general or special order direct.

22. Powers and functions of the Registrar

(1) The Registrar shall have the custody of the records of the Tribunal and shall exercise
such other functions as are assigned to him under these rules or by the Presiding Officer by a
separate order in writing.

(2) The official seal shall be kept in the custody of the Registrar.

(3) Subject to any general or special direction by the Presiding Officer, the seal of the
Tribunal shall not be affixed to any order, summons or other process save under the authority in
writing from the Registrar.

(4) The seal of the Tribunal shall not affixed to any certified copy issued by the Tribunal
save under the authority in writing of the Registrar.

23. Additional powers and duties of Registrar
1 All. Dinesh Kumar Jindal Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr.
459

In addition to the powers conferred elsewhere in these rules, the Registrar shall have the
following powers and duties subject to any general or special order of the Presiding Officer,
namely,-

(i) to receive all applications and other documents including transferred applications,

(ii) to decide all questions arising out of the scrutiny of the applications before they are
registered;

(iii) to require any application presented to the Tribunal to be amended in accordance
with the rules;

(iv) subject to the direction of the Presiding Officer, to fix date of hearing of the
application or other proceedings and issue notice thereof;

(v) direct any formal amendment of records;

(vi) to order grant of copies of documents to parties to proceedings;

(vii) to grant leave to inspect other records of Tribunal;

(viii) dispose of all matters relying to the service of notices or other processes,
application for the issue of fresh notices or for extending the time for or ordering a particular
method of service on a defendant including a substituted service by publication of the notice by way
of advertisements in the newspapers;

(ix) to requisition records from the custody or any court or other authority."

10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules makes it manifest that a Securitisation Application
shall be presented by the applicant to the Registrar of DRT. Subject to the directions of the
Presiding Officer, the Registrar has the power to fix the date of hearing of the application or other
proceedings and issue notice thereof and he has the power to dispose of all matters relating to the
service of notices or other processes, application for the issue of fresh notices or for extending the
time or for ordering a particular method of service on a defendant, including a substituted service
by publication of the notice by way of advertisements in the newspapers. The Registrar has the
power to receive all applications and other documents and the defendant will file his reply to the
application along with documents, with the registry.

11. When power to issue notice to a defendant has specifically been conferred upon the
Registrar of DRT, it cannot be said that the Registrar has no power to issue notice to a defendant to
show-cause as to why the S.A. should not be allowed, and also to caution the defendant that in case
he fails to file a reply, the S.A. will be heard and decided ex parte.

12. Further, as per Rule 12 of the Procedure Rules, the defendant has to file his reply to the
application alongwith the documents with the registry of the DRT and, therefore, the Registrar has
rightly directed the defendant to appear in person or by a pleader/ advocate to show-cause why the
said S.A. should not be allowed.

13. Therefore, I find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that
the Registrar of DRT has no jurisdiction to issue notice to the opposite parties.

14. It has been pleaded in the petition that on 18.11.2025, the petitioner sent an email to the
official email ID of the DRT stating that the Registrar has no authority to issue notice to the
respondents to appear before him; that the issuance of notice before listing of the matter before the
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Presiding Officer is in direct contravention of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 and that it defeats
the very purpose of a caveat and / or urgent hearing as the Registrar has no power to adjudicate
upon a Securitisation Application. The petitioner requested the Registrar to withdraw the notice
forthwith. It has been pleaded in the petition that the Registrar has failed to reply to the email
communication dated 18.11.2025 and / or withdraw the notice dated 11.11.2025. This Court fails to
understand as to how withdrawal of the notice would have expedited the hearing of the S.A. Rather,
the Securitisation Application cannot be heard without issuance and service of notice of the same
upon the defendant. The objection raised by the petitioner appears to be self harming.

15. Although it is pleaded that the petitioner had filed an application for urgent hearing, a copy
of the said application has not been brought on record of this petition.

16. The Court requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to provide assistance with the
help of any precedent so as to establish that the grievance being raised by the petitioner falls within
the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but he stated that he has not
brought any precedent to be placed before the Court.

17. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.: (2001) 8 SCC 97, the Hon?ble Supreme
Court held that: -

"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this
Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior
courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected
or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative
to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the
courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave
injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this
article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of
that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.
The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there
is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly
come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."

18. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai: (2003) 6 SCC 675, the Hon?ble Supreme Court
has summarised the scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the following
words: -

"38. ...We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state
the same as hereunder:

* * *
1 All. Dinesh Kumar Jindal Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr.
461

(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the
subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a
jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the
jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure
of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory
jurisdiction.

(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to
correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is
manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter
disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned
thereby.

* * *

(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised
sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to
act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection
need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the
pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is
yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred
thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel
inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become
incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where
such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.

(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself
into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in
drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

* * *"

19. In B. S. Hari v. Union of India: (2023) 13 SCC 779, the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that: -

50. ...we reiterate that the High Courts, under Articles 226 and/or 227, are to exercise their
discretion "... solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical
wisdom of the Judge", as highlighted in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai. This guiding principle still
governs the field, and the 3-Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423] had only
partly overruled Surya Dev Rai in terms below:

29.1. Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution.

29.2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.

29.3. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled."

20. The Registrar DRT issued the impugned notice to the opposite parties on 11.11.2025, directing
them to appear before him on 17.11.2025. On 17.11.2025 the Registrar listed the matter for 01.12.2025
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the Presiding Officer of the DRT. The present petition was presented before the Registrar Listing of
this Court on 18.12.2025, i.e., after the S.A. had already been listed before the Presiding Officer of the
DRT and the grievance of the petitioner that the matter ought to have been listed before the Presiding
Officer of the DRT and not before the Registrar, had already been redressed on 01.12.2025. Therefore,
besides the fact that the petitioner?s submission that the impugned notice has been issued without
jurisdiction has been rejected, the notice has not caused a failure of justice or grave injustice to the
petitioner, which is a sine qua non for maintaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed at the
admission stage.

22. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to put it on record that there are 207 matters listed
today in the list of fresh petitions, 128 matters are listed in the additional list and 51 matters are listed in the
daily IA list. The Court repetitively requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to refrain from wasting
the time of the Court and to raise his pleas before the DRT where the SA is pending but due to his
insistence, the Court had to decide the petition by this detailed judgment, which has resulted in
unwarranted wastage of the precious time of the Court, which could have been utilized for deciding some
other matter. Normally the Court would have imposed costs for wasting time of the Court but keeping in
view that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a young and inexperienced Counsel, who got enrolled
with the Bar Council only in the year 2024, the Court is taking a lenient view and is desisting from
imposing costs on the petitioner, but the learned Counsel should understand that although he represents his
client before the Court, he is not a mere mouthpiece of his client. In case a client insists for filing a petition
or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and the
Advocate should refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief.

23. Besides being a representative of his client, an Advocate is a responsible officer of the Court and
he should assist the Court with his precise and concise submissions, wherever possible, with the assistance
of the relevant Laws, including the Statutes, the Rules and the judicial precedents. It is said that the Bar
and the Bench are the wheels of the same chariot. For fast and smooth running of the chariot, it is
necessary that all the wheels should move forward at the same pace and one set of wheels should not try to
put brakes on the other set of wheels of the chariot.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 6218 of 2004

Ramesh Chandra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents