DRT Coimbatore: Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jurisdiction, Powers and Role in Bank Recovery Cases
The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Coimbatore is a specialised statutory forum dealing with disputes relating to recovery of debts owed to banks and financial institutions and with challenges arising from enforcement of secured assets. Official records identify it as the “Debts Recovery Tribunal Coimbatore.” The tribunal is currently listed at the District Ex-Service Centre, 2nd and 3rd Floor, 27 Travelers Bungalow Road, Coimbatore. Current 2026 records show the tribunal actively conducting Original Applications, Securitisation Applications, interlocutory proceedings and other recovery-related matters.
The DRT system operates primarily under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The legislation created specialised tribunals to adjudicate and facilitate recovery of qualifying debts due to banks and financial institutions. The DRT framework also works closely with the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, commonly known as the SARFAESI Act.
Coimbatore’s tribunal has particular importance because the city is a major industrial, textile, manufacturing and commercial centre in Tamil Nadu. Financial facilities provided to manufacturing companies, textile businesses, traders, small and medium enterprises and individuals can involve mortgages, guarantees, working-capital facilities and other secured transactions. When such accounts become disputed or remain unpaid, proceedings can reach the DRT.
The official e-DRT system separately identifies Coimbatore as one of the tribunals available for electronic filing. The Government’s e-filing manual instructs applicants to select the appropriate DRT according to jurisdiction and then select the type of application they intend to file.
One of the principal forms of proceedings before DRT Coimbatore is the Original Application, commonly abbreviated as OA. Banks and financial institutions use Original Applications to pursue recovery of qualifying debts. The proceedings can involve individual borrowers, companies, partnership firms, proprietorship concerns and guarantors.
The tribunal’s 2026 cause lists demonstrate the continuing flow of such recovery proceedings. A July 2026 cause list, for example, includes Original Applications filed by State Bank of India, Union Bank of India, Indian Bank and Federal Bank against individuals and business entities. One of the listed matters involves Indian Bank seeking recovery from Venki Biodegrades Private Limited, while another involves Federal Bank and Narasimma Tex.
The nature of a DRT recovery proceeding can be considerably more complicated than a simple claim for an unpaid loan. Cases can involve loan agreements, mortgages, guarantees, hypothecation, security interests, interest calculations and disputes concerning the liability of borrowers and guarantors.
The second major category of litigation is the Securitisation Application, generally referred to as an SA. These proceedings arise principally when a secured creditor has taken measures under the SARFAESI Act and an eligible borrower or other affected person invokes the statutory remedy before the DRT.
Current Coimbatore records contain numerous Securitisation Applications against banks and financial institutions. A June 2026 cause list includes proceedings against State Bank of India, Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited and Canara Bank, among others.
The distinction between an OA and an SA is important. An OA generally represents a recovery proceeding initiated by a bank or financial institution, whereas an SA generally concerns a challenge to measures taken by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI framework. The appropriate legal remedy depends on the particular facts, statutory provision and stage of enforcement.
SARFAESI disputes can become particularly urgent when a secured property is approaching possession or auction. The asset may be a residential property, commercial building, industrial premises, land, machinery or another asset provided as security for a financial facility.
The current Coimbatore cause lists demonstrate that such cases can involve urgent applications. In June 2026, for example, a matter involving Kanagam Poultry Farm and Canara Bank concerned a challenge to a sale notice dated 5 May 2026, with the sale scheduled for 17 June 2026. The matter also included an application seeking interim injunction and another application concerning appointment of an advocate commissioner.
Another June 2026 cause list records a Securitisation Application by Ranganathan against State Bank of India along with an application seeking a stay of sale. These entries demonstrate how DRT proceedings can become closely connected with imminent enforcement against secured assets.
The precise stage of enforcement is therefore critical. A demand for repayment, a statutory SARFAESI demand notice, a possession measure, an auction notice and a completed sale are distinct stages of the recovery process. The applicable statutory remedy and limitation requirements can depend upon the particular action being challenged.
The tribunal also deals with interlocutory applications arising within larger OA and SA proceedings. Current records contain applications seeking stays, advance hearings, restoration of proceedings, amendments, extension of time, impleadment of parties and other procedural relief.
This means that a case number alone may not reveal the complete procedural position. A party may need to examine the latest cause list and orders to determine whether there is an interim order, stay application, restoration application or other pending interlocutory proceeding.
The Recovery Officer is another important part of the DRT structure. After a recovery certificate is issued following adjudication, enforcement can continue before the Recovery Officer. The recovery process can involve statutory measures directed toward satisfying the amount certified as recoverable.
The distinction between adjudication and recovery is significant. A final order in an Original Application does not necessarily mean that the financial institution has immediately recovered the entire amount. Further proceedings may be required to enforce the recovery certificate and realise assets in accordance with the applicable law.
The official records also demonstrate that DRT Coimbatore deals with cases that have remained pending through several procedural stages. A July 2026 cause list, for example, contains OA 381/2014 filed by State Bank of India against M/s Achme Knit Wear, alongside later matters filed in 2026. This shows the coexistence of older recovery proceedings and newly instituted cases on the tribunal’s docket.
The tribunal’s January 2026 judgment in OA No. 311 of 2015 provides another example of the nature of proceedings handled at Coimbatore. The case was filed by Bank of India, R.S. Puram Branch, against an individual proprietor of a business named M/s Varma Spintex. The official record identifies Sri N. Somasundaar as the Presiding Officer and records a final order dated 31 January 2026.
The case is illustrative of the fact that DRT proceedings can involve traditional commercial borrowing disputes between banks and individual proprietors or business concerns, in addition to larger corporate recovery matters.
Coimbatore’s industrial economy also gives the tribunal a distinctive commercial character. Textile mills, spinning units, engineering businesses, manufacturing enterprises, poultry and agricultural businesses, traders and other commercial establishments appear in the tribunal’s records. A number of disputes therefore involve business assets and secured commercial property.
The tribunal’s current records also show proceedings involving asset reconstruction companies. In one June 2026 matter, J Dhayananthh was listed against Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited. This reflects the increasingly important role of asset reconstruction companies in India’s stressed-asset and debt-recovery ecosystem.
A financial asset may, subject to applicable law, move from an original lender to an asset reconstruction company. Once that occurs, the identity of the creditor and the history of assignment or transfer can become important issues in subsequent recovery or securitisation proceedings.
Guarantors can likewise become parties to DRT proceedings. Where a person has provided a guarantee for a borrower’s financial obligations, the bank’s recovery claim can potentially involve the guarantor according to the guarantee documents and applicable law. Receiving a DRT notice should therefore not be treated as insignificant merely because the recipient was not the principal borrower.
Businesses facing financial difficulties can also encounter several overlapping proceedings. A company may have term loans, working-capital facilities, mortgages, guarantees and multiple lenders. Recovery litigation can consequently involve several connected financial and security documents.
The interaction between DRT proceedings and insolvency proceedings can become particularly important in corporate cases. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides a separate statutory framework for insolvency and restructuring, while the DRT and SARFAESI mechanisms operate in their respective statutory fields. Determining the appropriate forum or remedy requires examination of the specific facts and procedural stage.
Technology has become an important part of DRT Coimbatore’s functioning. Current 2026 cause lists provide a Google Meet link for hearings and specify the court’s normal sitting hours. The records state that the court generally sits from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and then from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., subject to administrative exigencies.
The tribunal has also used hybrid and virtual hearings in earlier proceedings. Official records contain instructions requiring advocates or litigants using video conferencing to follow formal hearing protocols and, where applicable, intimate the registry before finalisation of the cause list.
Virtual participation can be particularly useful for parties and lawyers who are not located in Coimbatore. It can reduce travel requirements for routine hearings while allowing the tribunal to continue proceedings through electronic platforms.
However, the availability and mode of virtual participation can vary according to the tribunal’s current directions. Litigants should therefore rely on the latest cause list or registry instructions rather than assuming that every hearing will automatically be conducted online.
Administrative changes can also affect hearing schedules. A January 2026 cause list records that numerous cases were reposted because of administrative reasons, while emergent matters were to be taken up in the Presiding Officer’s chamber in the presence of both sides.
This demonstrates why monitoring the latest cause list is important. An earlier hearing date may be changed, and a case may be reposted for a later date because of administrative or procedural circumstances.
The tribunal’s records also contain matters where courts have directed the DRT to conclude arguments or proceed expeditiously. In one June 2026 case involving S. Dhanabalan and State Bank of India, the cause list noted a High Court direction concerning conclusion of arguments.
Such directions demonstrate the relationship between DRT proceedings and constitutional courts. High Courts can become involved in appropriate cases concerning statutory remedies, procedural issues and directions regarding pending tribunal matters, while the DRT remains the specialised statutory forum for matters within its jurisdiction.
The appellate structure provides another level of review. Subject to statutory requirements, an aggrieved party may challenge a DRT order before the appropriate Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The applicable limitation period, pre-deposit requirements and scope of appeal depend upon the nature of the order and the governing legislation.
For borrowers, one of the most important practical issues is to identify exactly what action the bank or financial institution has taken. A borrower facing an auction notice may have a different statutory situation from one who has only received an initial demand notice. The dates of the relevant measures can also become important when determining limitation.
For banks and financial institutions, DRT Coimbatore provides a specialised mechanism for pursuing qualifying recovery claims. The tribunal’s Original Application process, Securitisation Application jurisdiction and Recovery Officer mechanism together provide a statutory route for dealing with disputed and unpaid debts.
For borrowers and other eligible parties, the tribunal provides a forum to invoke the remedies provided by law against certain recovery and secured-asset enforcement measures. The tribunal’s role is therefore not simply to facilitate bank recovery but also to adjudicate statutory challenges brought by affected parties.
The current 2026 cause lists demonstrate the range of financial institutions appearing before DRT Coimbatore. The records include State Bank of India, Indian Bank, Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda, Union Bank of India, Central Bank of India, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, Federal Bank, Punjab National Bank and other lenders.
The tribunal’s cases also involve different types of borrowers. Current records include individuals, proprietors, partnership or business concerns and private companies. This makes DRT Coimbatore relevant not only to large commercial enterprises but also to smaller businesses and individual borrowers whose secured debts fall within the tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction.
The geographical and commercial significance of Coimbatore further increases the tribunal’s importance. The city and surrounding region have major textile, engineering, manufacturing, agricultural, automobile-component and commercial sectors. Financial disputes arising from these activities can involve substantial secured lending and complex commercial documentation.
The official DRT records currently identify the tribunal at the District Ex-Service Centre, 2nd and 3rd Floor, 27 Travelers Bungalow Road, Coimbatore. The 2026 cause lists also confirm continuing hearings and electronic participation arrangements.
For a person dealing with a current DRT Coimbatore matter, the case number, proceeding type, creditor, amount claimed, next hearing date and latest interim orders should be verified from the official case record. In a SARFAESI matter, the relevant demand, possession and auction notices should also be examined carefully.
The same caution applies to banks and financial institutions. Cause lists can change, cases can be reposted and interlocutory applications can alter the procedural position. The latest official order and cause list are therefore more reliable than an older directory entry or previously published hearing date.
DRT Coimbatore is consequently an important part of India’s specialised debt-recovery infrastructure in Tamil Nadu. Its work covers Original Applications, Securitisation Applications, interlocutory proceedings, recovery-related matters and enforcement of recovery claims. The tribunal’s current 2026 records show a continuing workload involving banks, financial institutions, borrowers, guarantors and businesses.
The broader significance of the tribunal lies in the balance between two requirements of the financial system. Banks and financial institutions need a statutory mechanism for recovering legitimate debts, while borrowers and other affected parties need access to the legal remedies available against disputed recovery and secured-asset enforcement measures. DRT Coimbatore provides the specialised institutional forum in which those competing statutory claims are examined.
Because jurisdictional arrangements, hearing schedules and administrative procedures can change, anyone relying on information for an active case should verify the latest official DRT records before filing, appearing or taking a legal step. The current official records reviewed for this article confirm that DRT Coimbatore remains operational and actively conducting proceedings during 2026.
