In a session presided over by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, the Supreme Court bench was informed by the Centre during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition concerning the absence of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in the Union Territories (UTs) of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh that DRTs have not been established in eighteen States and two Union Territories."
In a recent hearing before the Supreme Court, the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG), representing the Union of India as the fourth respondent, brought to the Court's attention a significant lacuna in the establishment of Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) across several States and Union Territories. The ASG highlighted that a total of eighteen States, along with two Union Territories, had yet to establish DRTs within their jurisdictions.
The ASG underscored the critical importance of DRTs in the efficient resolution of debt recovery matters, emphasizing their role in expediting the adjudication process and ensuring the swift recovery of dues owed to financial institutions. Furthermore, the ASG elucidated that the absence of DRTs in these regions posed a substantial impediment to the effective enforcement of debt recovery mechanisms, thereby hampering the overall efficacy of the financial regulatory framework.
Of particular note was the revelation regarding the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, where the jurisdiction for debt recovery matters had been vested in DRTs situated in Chandigarh and Delhi. The ASG apprised the Court that these DRTs were equipped with modern facilities, including provisions for electronic filing and conducting hearings via video conferencing, thereby ensuring accessibility and efficiency in the adjudicatory process.
Upon hearing the submissions made by the ASG, the Court deliberated on the implications of the deficiency of DRTs in the aforementioned regions. Recognizing the pivotal role of DRTs in the realm of debt recovery and the need for their expeditious establishment across all States and Union Territories, the Court deemed it imperative to address this issue with urgency.
In light of the circumstances, the Court acceded to the request made by the counsel representing the petitioner for additional time to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an order dated April 12, 2024. Accordingly, the Court directed that the matter be listed for hearing on August 2, 2024, allowing for the timely consideration of the petitioner's grievance.
Furthermore, the Court stipulated that should the petitioner choose to file an SLP against the aforementioned order, it would be consolidated with the ongoing proceedings, thereby streamlining the adjudicatory process and ensuring comprehensive consideration of all relevant issues.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's scrutiny of the deficiency of DRTs in various States and Union Territories underscores the importance of establishing robust institutional mechanisms for debt recovery. By addressing this lacuna and facilitating the expeditious adjudication of debt recovery matters, the Court reaffirms its commitment to upholding the integrity and efficacy of the financial regulatory framework.
Subscribers can access the case, along with case analysis, case research, ratio decidendi, headnotes, briefs, caselaw cross-references, etc. etc.
Click on the Citation
Opmerkingen