POWERS OF DRT W.R.T.

THE INTERIM RELIEFS SOUGHT

 Under Section 19(12) the Tribunal may make an interim order (whether by way of

injunction or stay or attachment) against defendant to debar him from transferring,
alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of any property and assets
belonging to him without the prior permission of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is also empowered under Sub Section 13(A) of Section 19 to direct the
defendant to furnish security or pass such order as specified therein on being satisfied that
the defendant with an intent to obstruct or delay or frustrate the execution of any order or
the recovery of debt passed against him, or is about to dispose of the whole or any part of
the property, or is about to remove to whole or any of the part of the property, or is likely to
cause any damage or mischief to the property or affect its value by misuse or creating third
party interest.

From perusal of this Section 19, Sub-sections (12) and (18), it is apparent that the Tribunal has
jurisdiction to pass an interim order by way of injunction and also by way of appointing
Receiver during the pendency of the application . Sub-clause (25) also gives power to the
Tribunal to make such order and to give such direction as may be necessary or expedient to
give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.

DRAT Allahabad - State Bank Of India vs Bastar Oil Mills And Industries

- Section 22 (1) – tribunal has powers to pass interim order to restrain the defendants
from recovering any money from a particular party
- The learned Presiding Officer held that an interim order can be granted only in respect
of assets and properties of the defendants as per the provisions of Section 19(12) of the
Act.
- as per the provisions of Sub-section (12) of Section 19 of the Act reproduced above, it is
clear that the property or the asset should belong to the defendant, so that the
Tribunal can pass an interim order of injunction, stay or attachment.
 - Tribunal has the powers to pass interim orders under Section 22(1) of the Act to
restrain the defendants from recovering any money from a particular party .
Tribunal can exercise the powers contained in the CPC, 1908 and can even go beyond
the Code as long as it passes orders in conformity with the principles of natural
justice. 

CASES IN WHICH PRAYERS SIMILAR TO THOSE SOUGHT WERE GRANTED

DRAT Delhi - Punjab And Sind Bank And Anr. vs Arun Kumar Arora And Anr.

- Debt recovery appellate tribunal, delhi passed this order while disposing of an
appeal from the chandigarh DRT.
- appeal was disposed while telling the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the
possession of the property, directing the DRT. Chandigarh to dispose of the S.A. No.
69/2005

DRAT Delhi - Rajesh Kumar Jagga And Ors. vs Punjab National Bank And Ors

- The Tribunal below held that the action of the respondent-Bank taking over the physical
possession of the property was in accordance with law and in the eventuality of
restoration of the possession, several complications would arise. The application made
was accordingly dismissed, holding that they (appellants) were not entitled to get back
the possession of the property in question.
- The parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property in
question, but the O.A. was to proceed ahead in accordance with law.
- So, the grievance of the appellants is against the refusal of the restoration of possession to
them of the property in question.
- Appeal was dismissed

Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta Vs Bank of India (Bombay High Court)

HELD THAT: Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is Not Empowered In Law To Restrain A
Debtor’s Fundamental Right To Travel Abroad.

In the said Original Application, respondent No.1 – Bank sought interim relief restraining the
Petitioner from travelling abroad and for impounding the passport of the Petitioner. On
18.01.2018, the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed an order restraining the Petitioner from
travelling abroad.

- Said decision was challenged

- HC – Nagpur bench held that the order was against the FR right to travel abroad of
the debtor + there is no such power w/ the DRT to restrain the debtor from
travelling abroad.
- Tribunal while exercising powers of Civil Court adjudicating money suit, is limited
to the extent of passing interim order by way of injunction or stay which are
expressly conferred on it.