DRT Cuttack: Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jurisdiction, Powers and Role in Bank Recovery Cases
The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Cuttack is a specialised statutory forum dealing with disputes relating to recovery of debts owed to banks and financial institutions and challenges arising from enforcement of secured assets. Official records identify it as the “Debts Recovery Tribunal Cuttack.” The tribunal is located at C-71, Sector-7, CDA, Cuttack, Odisha–753014. Current 2026 cause lists confirm that the tribunal continues to conduct Original Applications, Securitisation Applications, interlocutory proceedings and recovery-related matters.
The Debt Recovery Tribunal system was established under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, to provide a specialised mechanism for adjudicating and recovering qualifying debts owed to banks and financial institutions. The tribunal system operates alongside the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, commonly known as the SARFAESI Act. Together, these laws form a major part of India’s statutory framework for bank-debt recovery and secured-credit enforcement.
DRT Cuttack has particular importance in Odisha because it serves as a specialised forum for banking and financial disputes arising in the state. Its current cause lists demonstrate cases involving borrowers, companies, business concerns, guarantors and a wide range of financial institutions. The 2026 records include proceedings initiated by State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Indian Bank, HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, IDFC First Bank, Union Bank of India, UCO Bank, Central Bank of India and other lenders.
One of the principal categories of litigation before DRT Cuttack is the Original Application, generally known as an OA. Banks and financial institutions use Original Applications to pursue recovery of qualifying debts. Such cases can involve individual borrowers as well as proprietorship concerns, partnership firms and companies.
The tribunal’s 2026 records show a continuing flow of fresh Original Applications. A July 2026 cause list, for example, contains new proceedings filed by Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, State Bank of India, Union Bank of India, Central Bank of India and IDBI Bank. The respondents include both individuals and commercial entities.
A March 2026 cause list similarly records fresh applications by Axis Bank, State Bank of India, ICICI Bank, IDFC First Bank, Bank of India, Central Bank of India, HDFC Bank and IDBI Bank. The matters include claims against individuals and businesses such as Shankar Minerals and Nigam Medihome.
A DRT recovery case can involve considerably more than a simple dispute over an unpaid loan. Proceedings can concern loan documentation, guarantees, mortgages, hypothecation, security interests, interest calculations, liability of borrowers and guarantors and the eventual enforcement of recovery orders.
The second major category of proceedings is the Securitisation Application, commonly called an SA. These applications generally arise 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 Cuttack records contain numerous Securitisation Applications involving borrowers and secured creditors. A March 2026 cause list includes an SA against Canara Bank with several interlocutory applications, including an application for stay. Other matters involve Jana Small Finance Bank, State Bank of India and Indian Bank.
The distinction between an OA and an SA is important. An OA generally represents a recovery proceeding initiated by a bank or financial institution, while an SA generally concerns a challenge to measures taken by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI framework. The appropriate remedy in a particular matter depends on the facts, the statutory provision involved and the stage reached in the enforcement process.
SARFAESI litigation can become particularly urgent when a secured property is facing possession or auction. The asset may be residential property, commercial premises, industrial land, machinery or another asset provided as security for a financial facility. Once enforcement reaches the possession or auction stage, the relevant statutory dates and notices can become critically important.
The Cuttack cause lists demonstrate the urgency that can arise in these disputes. One March 2026 proceeding involving Canara Bank included an application specifically seeking a stay, while another SA against State Bank of India also contained an application for stay.
Another case involved Maruti Traders against Indian Bank Khuntia, with an application for stay listed within the Securitisation Application. Such proceedings demonstrate how the DRT can become the forum for examining disputes concerning secured-credit enforcement while recovery action is continuing.
The tribunal’s work therefore extends beyond determining whether a debt exists. Depending on the nature of the proceeding, it may involve examination of statutory notices, security interests, possession measures, auction proceedings, contractual documents and compliance with the applicable recovery legislation.
The Recovery Officer is another important component of the DRT structure. After a recovery certificate is issued following adjudication, enforcement can continue through the Recovery Officer. Current Cuttack cause lists contain recovery-certificate matters arising from Original Applications filed several years earlier.
This means that the conclusion of an Original Application does not necessarily represent the end of the recovery process. Once a recovery certificate is issued, additional proceedings may be required to enforce it and recover the certified amount in accordance with the statutory framework.
The Cuttack records provide examples of recovery proceedings originating from older cases. A February 2026 cause list included recovery-certificate applications connected with OAs filed in 2012, 2019 and 2015, demonstrating that enforcement proceedings can continue long after the original recovery application was instituted.
The tribunal also handles matters involving transferred recovery proceedings. The April 2026 cause list, for example, contains a proceeding identified as NDN/541/2023 arising from an Original Application and involving Yes Bank and the respondent Chhatra Kumar Verma.
The variety of cases before DRT Cuttack reflects Odisha’s banking and commercial economy. The records contain disputes involving manufacturing and trading businesses, medical enterprises, construction concerns, automobile businesses, fisheries and agricultural enterprises, as well as individual borrowers.
For example, official records list matters involving Shankar Projects, SR Automobiles, Eastern India Fisheries and Agro Products, Cuttack Resins, Maa Durga Flour Mills and other business entities. These cases demonstrate that DRT proceedings can arise across several sectors of the regional economy.
The involvement of both individuals and businesses is also apparent from the current cause lists. A July 2026 list contains proceedings against individual respondents such as Diptimayee Guru and Ratikanta Ray as well as commercial entities such as SM Construction, Pravasini Motors and PS Enterprises.
Guarantors can also become parties to DRT proceedings. Where an individual or entity has provided a guarantee for a borrower’s financial obligations, the bank’s recovery claim may extend to the guarantor in accordance with the applicable guarantee documents and law. A DRT notice therefore should not automatically be disregarded merely because the recipient was not the principal borrower.
The identity of the creditor can also change during the life of a stressed financial asset. Asset reconstruction companies can acquire financial assets from banks and pursue recovery or enforcement subject to applicable law. The Cuttack cause lists contain proceedings involving asset reconstruction companies as well as traditional banks and financial institutions.
For borrowers, the exact stage of enforcement is particularly important. A demand for repayment, a SARFAESI demand notice, a possession measure, an auction notice and a completed sale are different stages of the statutory recovery process. The applicable remedy and limitation requirements may differ depending upon which measure is being challenged.
The timing of legal action can therefore be crucial. A party dealing with a SARFAESI dispute should identify the date of the relevant statutory measure and examine the applicable limitation provisions rather than relying on the date on which the underlying loan was originally sanctioned.
The Cuttack tribunal also deals extensively with interlocutory applications. These can include applications for stay, amendment, recall, impleadment of auction purchasers, restoration and other specific directions. Current records show multiple such applications being considered within larger Securitisation Applications.
An April 2026 cause list, for example, contains a Securitisation Application by Manjit Singh against Punjab National Bank together with applications for amendment and stay. Another matter involving Rich Engineers and Developers and Punjab National Bank included applications for stay and other specific directions.
These proceedings demonstrate why the main case number alone may not reveal the entire procedural position. An individual case can contain several interlocutory applications that may affect the immediate rights and obligations of the parties.
The tribunal’s official records also demonstrate that cases can be withdrawn or settled. A May 2026 cause list, for example, records a withdrawn Original Application filed by Bank of India against P.M. Associates. The same list also contains continuing Original Applications and Securitisation Applications.
Settlement is therefore another possible development in a DRT proceeding. A recovery dispute may be resolved between the financial institution and borrower without the tribunal ultimately determining every contested issue. Whether settlement is possible and on what terms depends entirely on the parties and applicable legal requirements.
Technology has become an important part of DRT Cuttack’s functioning. Current 2026 cause lists provide Cisco Webex arrangements for virtual hearings, including a meeting number and password, with hearings scheduled from 10:30 a.m. in the listed matters.
The use of virtual hearings can be particularly useful for parties and lawyers located outside Cuttack. It can reduce travel requirements and allow participation from other parts of Odisha or elsewhere in India where the tribunal permits virtual appearance.
The availability of video conferencing, however, should not be assumed for every hearing. The current cause list and directions of the tribunal should be checked because hearing modes and administrative arrangements can change.
The official records also show that DRT Cuttack continues to issue substantive orders. A November 2025 order in S.A. No. 62/2022, for example, recorded the appearance of counsel for the respondent bank and fixed the matter for hearing on a subsequent date. The order was signed by the Presiding Officer, J. P. Singh.
The tribunal’s continuing activity is therefore reflected not only in cause lists but also in individual judicial orders dealing with Securitisation Applications and other proceedings.
For borrowers, one of the most important practical considerations is identifying the exact relief being sought. A borrower may be challenging possession, an auction notice, a sale process or another measure. An application for stay may be particularly important where a sale or possession is imminent, but the availability and grant of interim relief depend upon the applicable law and facts.
For banks and financial institutions, DRT Cuttack provides a specialised forum for pursuing qualifying debt-recovery claims. The Original Application mechanism, Securitisation Application jurisdiction and Recovery Officer machinery together form an important part of the statutory framework for financial recovery.
The tribunal also forms part of a wider appellate and judicial structure. Subject to statutory requirements, an aggrieved party may have a right of appeal against a DRT order before the appropriate Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Limitation, pre-deposit requirements and the scope of an appeal depend upon the nature of the order and applicable legislation.
DRT proceedings can also intersect with insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Corporate borrowers facing financial distress may become subject to different statutory mechanisms at different stages. Determining the appropriate forum requires examination of the particular parties, debt, security, proceedings and applicable law.
The importance of DRT Cuttack consequently extends beyond simple loan recovery. Its proceedings can affect residential property, commercial assets, businesses, guarantees, secured assets and substantial financial obligations.
The tribunal’s 2026 records demonstrate that it continues to receive a substantial number of fresh cases. The July cause list includes Original Applications numbered from OA/337/2026 onward, with matters filed by Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, State Bank of India, Union Bank of India, Central Bank of India and IDBI Bank.
At the same time, older cases remain on the docket, including recovery and securitisation matters that originated several years earlier. The coexistence of fresh and older cases illustrates the continuing procedural life of financial-recovery litigation.
For lawyers and litigants, this makes monitoring the latest cause list particularly important. A case may be adjourned, withdrawn, transferred, listed for arguments, taken up for an interlocutory application or moved to the Recovery Officer stage.
The official address currently reflected in the tribunal’s 2026 cause lists is C-71, Sector-7, CDA, Cuttack, Odisha–753014. The same official records provide virtual-hearing information for appropriate hearings.
Anyone involved in a current DRT Cuttack case should verify the latest official case status, cause list and orders before appearing or taking a legal step. Older hearing dates and third-party directory information may not reflect subsequent changes.
A person receiving a DRT notice should identify the case number, type of proceeding, creditor, amount claimed, next hearing date and relief sought. In a SARFAESI matter, the relevant demand, possession and auction notices should also be preserved and examined carefully because the dates of statutory measures can be legally significant.
DRT Cuttack is therefore an important part of Odisha’s specialised financial-recovery infrastructure. Its continuing 2026 proceedings cover Original Applications, Securitisation Applications, interlocutory applications and recovery-certificate matters involving major banks, financial institutions, businesses, individuals and guarantors.
The broader role of the tribunal lies in providing a specialised institutional mechanism through which financial institutions can pursue qualifying recovery claims while borrowers and other eligible parties can invoke statutory remedies against disputed recovery and secured-asset enforcement measures. Its proceedings consequently sit at the intersection of banking, property, commercial and financial law.
Because tribunal jurisdiction, hearing schedules, administrative arrangements and procedural requirements can change, current litigants should rely on the latest official DRT records rather than older published information. The official records reviewed for this article confirm that DRT Cuttack remains operational and actively handling debt-recovery and SARFAESI-related proceedings during 2026.
