DRAT Mumbai Rejects Bank of Maharashtra’s Appeal Over Failure to File Certified Copy of the DRT Order
Mumbai DRAT Dismisses Bank of Maharashtra’s Appeal on Technical Ground, Reaffirms Mandatory Filing Requirements
In a significant ruling emphasizing procedural compliance in debt recovery litigation, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, dismissed an appeal filed by Bank of Maharashtra after holding that the bank failed to submit the certified copy of the detailed order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that without the certified copy of the impugned order, the appeal was not maintainable in the eyes of law, making procedural compliance indispensable for appellate proceedings.
Background of the Dispute
The litigation originated from proceedings before DRT-III, Mumbai, involving M/s Kamdar Plastic and others, who had challenged the bank’s attempt to take physical possession of their mortgaged property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
During the hearing held on 9 February 2026, the DRT reserved its order for pronouncement on 12 February 2026 because time had expired for delivering the judgment on the same day. However, later on the evening of 9 February, the Bank of Maharashtra proceeded to take physical possession of the secured asset.
When the matter was taken up on 12 February, the borrowers informed the Tribunal that possession had already been taken despite the order having been reserved. They therefore sought restoration of possession before the DRT.
DRT Ordered Restoration of Possession
The DRT subsequently granted several opportunities to the bank to file objections against the borrowers’ restoration application.
According to the record:
- The bank failed to file objections despite repeated opportunities.
- No reply was submitted before the restoration application was finally decided.
- On 2 March 2026, DRT directed the Bank of Maharashtra to restore possession of the mortgaged property to the borrowers within two weeks.
Bank Challenged the Order Before DRAT
Aggrieved by the restoration order, the Bank of Maharashtra approached the Mumbai DRAT.
The bank argued that:
- No written stay order had been passed by DRT on 9 February.
- Any alleged oral observations made by the Tribunal could not legally restrain the bank.
- Therefore, taking possession before the pronouncement of the reserved order was lawful.
The borrowers strongly opposed the appeal.
Their principal objection was that the bank had annexed only the certified copy of the one-page order sheet, while failing to file the certified copy of the detailed six-page DRT order, which is mandatory under the applicable procedural rules governing appeals before DRAT.
DRAT’s Findings
The matter was heard by Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, who observed that the appeal itself suffered from a fatal procedural defect.
The Tribunal noted that:
- The certified copy of the detailed DRT order was neither filed with the memorandum of appeal nor produced even during final arguments.
- Filing only the order sheet could not satisfy the mandatory statutory requirement.
Relying upon the DRAT (Procedure) Rules and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anglewoods Apartments Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha, the Tribunal held that submission of a certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory for maintaining an appeal.
Tribunal Also Criticised the Bank’s Conduct
Apart from the procedural defect, the Tribunal expressed serious concern over the bank’s conduct in taking possession after the DRT had reserved its judgment.
According to the Tribunal:
- Once a judicial authority reserves an order for pronouncement, parties are expected to maintain status quo and avoid actions that may frustrate the judicial process.
- The bank’s decision to take possession before the reserved judgment was delivered demonstrated conduct that undermined the administration of justice.
The Tribunal observed that even in the absence of an express interim order, judicial discipline required the bank to wait until the reserved order was pronounced.
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling serves as an important reminder that procedural requirements are not mere technicalities but essential components of appellate jurisdiction.
The judgment reinforces that:
- Appeals before DRAT must strictly comply with statutory filing requirements.
- Failure to annex the certified copy of the impugned order may render an appeal legally non-existent.
- Banks exercising powers under the SARFAESI Act are expected to act fairly and avoid steps that interfere with pending judicial proceedings.
- Procedural discipline is equally binding on financial institutions and borrowers alike.
Legal Significance for SARFAESI Litigation
The decision is likely to influence future SARFAESI appeals by underscoring several principles:
- Certified copies of impugned orders are mandatory for appeals before DRAT.
- Procedural defects affecting maintainability cannot be casually ignored.
- Judicial proceedings must not be rendered ineffective by unilateral recovery actions during the period when orders are reserved.
- Financial institutions must ensure complete procedural compliance before invoking appellate remedies.
For banks, borrowers, and legal practitioners, the judgment highlights that substantive rights may be defeated by procedural non-compliance, making meticulous adherence to procedural rules indispensable in debt recovery litigation.
