The Allahabad High Court dismissed a challenge to the DRT Registrar’s authority, affirming the powers granted under procedural rules. It also reminded lawyers that “the learned Counsel… is not a mere mouthpiece of his client” and must reject frivolous briefs.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Lucknow’s authority to issue notices in securitisation proceedings.
The court emphasized that such powers are clearly granted to the Registrar under the relevant procedural rules.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi highlighted the responsibility of advocates, stating,
“The learned Counsel should understand that although he represents his client before the Court, he is not a mere mouthpiece of his client. In case a client insists for filing a petition or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and the Advocate should refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief.”
The petition, filed by Dinesh Kumar Jindal under Article 227 of the Constitution, questioned the validity of a notice issued on November 11, 2025, by the Registrar regarding a securitisation application.
This notice required the respondents to appear before the Registrar and show cause as to why the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, should not be granted, warning that failing to appear could lead to an ex parte decision.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Registrar lacked authority to issue such a notice, claiming the power to admit, hear, and resolve securitisation applications rested solely with the Tribunal’s Presiding Officer.
He further contended that listing the matter before the Registrar rather than the Presiding Officer caused unnecessary delays, which could be detrimental in the time-sensitive context of SARFAESI matters.
However, the court noted that by the time the petition was considered on December 18, 2025, the securitisation application had already been brought before the Presiding Officer on December 1, 2025.
Thus, the issue raised about the listing before the Registrar had already been addressed. The court observed that the petition did not reveal any specific legal injury to the petitioner arising from the brief period the matter was with the Registrar.
Despite this, the counsel pressed for judicial examination of the jurisdiction issue, asserting that actions taken without proper authority could be contested, even without proven prejudice.
The court reviewed the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, especially Rules 4, 5, 12, 13, 22, and 23, which govern the filing, scrutiny, registration of applications, and outline the powers and responsibilities of the Registrar.
A straightforward interpretation of these rules confirmed that the Registrar is explicitly authorized to receive and scrutinise applications, set hearing dates under the directions of the Presiding Officer, and issue notices to involved parties.
The Registrar is also permitted to manage notice services and other processes. In this light, the court found no legal flaws in the notice requiring respondents to appear and respond, nor in the warning regarding potential ex parte proceedings.
It noted that a securitisation application cannot progress without proper issuance and service of notice to the respondents, thus rendering the petitioner’s objections self-defeating.
Additionally, there was no evidence on file to support the petitioner’s claim of seeking an urgent hearing from the Tribunal.
The court determined that supervisory jurisdiction is only applicable in cases of clear jurisdictional failures or significant injustices.
Since the Registrar acted according to the procedural rules and no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated, the petition was found to lack merit. While dismissing the petition at the admission stage, the court expressed discontent over the unnecessary use of judicial resources, given the heavy caseload. It refrained from imposing costs solely due to the petitioner’s counsel being a recent member of the Bar.
Justice Vidyarthi concluded by stating,
“It is said that the Bar and the Bench are the wheels of the same chariot. For fast and smooth running of the chariot, it is necessary that all the wheels should move forward at the same pace and one set of wheels should not try to put brakes on the other set of wheels of the chariot.”
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Jindal vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And Another
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
