Last Updated on January 16, 2026 by Satish Mishra

You generally cannot file a writ petition directly against Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) orders because the statutory appeal to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) under SARFAESI Act (Section 18) or RDDB Act is the primary remedy, but High Courts might entertain a writ in exceptional cases of fraud, manifest injustice, or where remedies are exhausted/ineffective, though Supreme Court rulings emphasize exhausting tribunal remedies first, as seen in cases where High Courts dismissed petitions for not following the appeal route. 

In 2026, the legal position regarding Writ Petitions against Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) orders remains strictly governed by the principle of “alternative efficacious remedy.” High Courts generally decline to entertain Writ Petitions under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution because a specialized statutory appeal process exists. 

Standard Procedure (Preferred)

1. Appeal to DRAT: If you are aggrieved by a DRT order (especially under SARFAESI Act, Section 17), your first step is to appeal to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) within 30/45 days.
2. DRAT Powers: The DRAT hears appeals against DRT orders and has powers to grant relief, including staying proceedings, with specific deposit requirements. 

General Rule: Non-Maintainability

• Alternative Remedy: Under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and Section 20 of the RDB Act, an aggrieved party must first approach the DRAT.
• Avoiding Pre-deposit: Courts have specifically deprecated the practice of filing writs solely to bypass the mandatory pre-deposit (typically 50% of the debt) required for a DRAT appeal.

When a Writ Petition Might Be Considered (Exceptions)

• Exceptional Circumstances: High Courts generally decline writs if the DRAT/DRT remedy is available.
• Fraud/Collusion: A writ might be entertained if the case involves serious fraud or collusion, as per Supreme Court guidance.
• Manifest Injustice: Where the DRT/DRAT process itself is fundamentally flawed or leads to gross injustice.
• No Effective Alternative Remedy: If the statutory remedy is demonstrably unworkable or non-existent, though this is rarely accepted. 

Key Supreme Court Rulings

• Exhaustion of Remedies: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that High Courts shouldn’t interfere via writ when statutory remedies (like DRAT appeal) exist, emphasizing quicker loan recovery.
• K. Sreedhar Vs. M/s. Raus Constructions: Confirmed that writ petitions against DRT orders are generally not maintainable; appeal to DRAT is the way.
• Union Bank of India v. Satyawadi Tondon: Reaffirmed that parties must use the Section 17 (DRT) and Section 18 (DRAT) remedies under SARFAESI. 

This post is a case digest on writ petition against the orders of DRT in Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh by which the Securitization Application filed by the petitioners was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners have not lost their physical possession over the mortgaged property. Now the same was challenged before Punjab Haryana High Court.

1. Appeal to DRAT: File an appeal within 30 days of receiving the DRT order.
2. Pre-deposit: Be prepared to deposit at least 50% of the debt amount claimed or determined, which the DRAT may reduce to 25% for recorded reasons.
3. High Court Intervention: A Writ Petition should only be considered after exhausting the DRAT remedy, or if the case falls strictly within the “exceptional circumstances” mentioned above

Also Read- Can Banks attach Agricultural Land DRT Chandigarh Bench?

M/S National Electronics … vs Authorized Officer Punjab

16 November, 2019

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CWP-18067-2018 (O&M)Date of Decision: 16.11.2019Petitioners- M/s National Electronics Corporation and anotherRespondent- Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank Two judgments have been referred: 1. M/S Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Thr.2. Shanta Arora vs Debts Recovery Appellate Also Read- Whether DRT or High Court Chandigarh for Payment Default (NPA) M/S Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Thr Ø Whether an application under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks/financial institutions in exercise of their powers under section 13(4) of the Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.Ø Taking measure under Section 13(4)(a) would mean taking actual (physical) possession, and if we do not read it in the said provision to say so, the right and power of the secured creditor to transfer the assets by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the secured assets, as provided for therein, would render redundant.Ø Unless physical possession is taken, the measure, contemplated under Section 13(4), cannot be stated to have been taken.Ø The absolute owner, who is under no personal incapacity can grant lease for any term he pleases. However, the limited owner like a tenant for life can grant lease but it would not endure beyond his death.Ø Under S. 52 if a document gives only a right to use the property in a particular way or under certain terms while it remains in possession and control of the owner thereof, it will be a licence. The legal possession, therefore, continues to be with the owner of the property, but the licensee is permitted to make use of the permissive for a particular purpose.Ø The ultimate object of taking possession of the secured asset or management of the business of the borrower would not be achieved unless the secured creditor is in a position to further exercise his right to transfer the same, inter alia, by way of lease or sale, which could be possible only if physical (actual) possession has been taken over and not constructive or symbolic possession.Ø  A secured creditor remains a secured creditor when only constructive or symbolic possession is given, as the entire interest in the property not having been passed on to the secured creditor in the first place, the secured creditor in turn could not pass on the entire interest in the property to the auction purchaser.  Also Read- CONDONATION OF DELAY PETITION IN DRT CHANDIGARH Shanta Arora vs Debts Recovery Appellate º   Securitization Application No.643 of 2017 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the secured creditor has not taken physical possession on the basis of symbolic possession in terms of the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.º    The impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 03.08.2018 does not survive. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby allowed and orders dated 03.08.2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal- III, Chandigarh to decide the same in accordance with law.

Also Read- DRT Chandigarh Procedure

Orders in the present Petition:

• The petition filed under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002′) would be 1 of 2 CWP-18067-2018 (O&M) -2-maintainable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal despite the fact that the physical possession is not lost.
• The impugned order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to it to decide the same on merits.
• With the disposal of this petition, all the interim orders passed by this Court have come to an end but petitioners are at liberty to raise the issue of stay in the proceedings before the DRT after the remand of this matter.
• Parties are directed to appear before the DRT on 04.12.2019

Also Read- Securitization Application DRT to Redeliver Possession Back

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert DRT Chandigarh Lawyers Advocate in Punjab Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana etc.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview  included in Post.

More on 99888-17966.