Allahabad HC Flags Non-Functioning Of DRT Prayagraj, Asks Finance Ministry To Expedite Appointments
The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom on Friday took word of the extended non-functioning of the Money owed Restoration Tribunal (DRT) at Prayagraj because of an absence of a presiding officer. Terming the state of affairs as ‘alarming’, it urged the Ministry of Finance to urgently refill the vacant posts at DRT.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri handed the order whereas listening to a writ petition whereby the petitioner had challenged an ex-parte order handed underneath Part 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
The petitioner additionally sought safety towards coercive restoration measures as he submitted that, as a guarantor, he was all the time able to pay the quantity due upon the borrower.
The Courtroom famous that, like the current case, a number of such writ petitions in search of the identical reduction had been being filed earlier than the Excessive Courtroom owing to the non-functionality of the Prayagraj DRT.
It famous that though pressing issues had been briefly being dealt with by DRT Jabalpur, even that association had ceased after the extra cost given to DRT Jabalpur expired on June 24, 2025, and now, no issues are being heard, even when they’re pressing.
“The above state of affairs is alarming and is leading to inordinate delay in issues being heard“, the Bench remarked, including that events just like the petitioner are left with out treatment because of a non-functioning of DRT.
Consequently, the Excessive Courtroom directed its Registry to speak the current order to the Ministry of Finance and the Workplace of the Assistant Solicitor Normal of India (ASGI) on the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom forthwith for mandatory motion. The Courtroom additionally directed the ASGI to look on the following date of listening to.
On the deserves of the case, counting on the Supreme Courtroom’s ruling in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808, the Courtroom declined to grant interim reduction to the petitioner because it famous that the secured property had already been offered (in December 2024) and even the sale certificates has additionally been issued (in March 2025).
The Courtroom, nevertheless, directed the respondent financial institution to file its quick counter-affidavit inside two weeks. The matter has been listed for additional listening to on July 29.
Case title – Yadunandan Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And three Others
