Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge To DRT Registrar's Power To Issue Notices In SARFAESI Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court has rejected a challenge to a notice issued by the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in a securitisation case, holding that the Registrar was empowered under the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. 

“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,” Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held.

The ruling came in a challenge to a notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, the law that allows banks and financial institutions to enforce secured loans without court intervention.

The petition challenged a notice dated November 11, 2025, issued by the Registrar of the DRT, Lucknow. The notice was issued in a securitisation application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. That provision allows borrowers or other affected parties to approach the tribunal against actions taken by banks.

The notice required the opposite party to appear and show cause why the application should not be allowed. It warned that the matter could be heard ex parte in case of default.

The petitioner argued that only the Presiding Officer of the tribunal could issue such a notice and not the Registrar . It was submitted that the Registrar, who performs procedural functions, had no jurisdiction to do so. The petitioner also claimed the notice delayed consideration of interim relief.

The High Court noted that the matter had already been listed before the Presiding Officer on December 1, 2025. The petition before the High Court was filed later, on December 18, 2025. The Court found no prejudice caused by the notice.

Referring to the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the Court said securitisation applications are first presented before the Registrar. It said the Registrar can fix hearing dates and issue notices. This is subject to the directions of the Presiding Officer.

“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,” the Court said.

The court rejected the challenge to the Registrar's jurisdiction. It held that the Registrar was competent to call upon the opposite party to appear and file a reply. It noted that without service of notice, the application could not be heard at all.

“The Securitisation Application cannot be heard without issuance and service of notice of the same upon the defendant,” the Court said. It added that “the objection raised by the petitioner appears to be self harming.”

The Court also declined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court said it applies only where there is a grave injustice or failure of justice.

Finding no such injustice, the High Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage.

For Petitioner: Advocate Suryansh Kumar Arora