DRT Kolkata: Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jurisdiction, Powers and the Changing Landscape of Debt Recovery in West Bengal
The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata, commonly known as DRT Kolkata, occupies an important position in India’s banking and financial recovery system. Established under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the tribunal mechanism was created to provide a specialised forum for the expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts owed to banks and financial institutions. The Central Government currently states that 39 Debts Recovery Tribunals and five Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals are functioning across India.
Kolkata is a significant DRT centre because of the volume and complexity of banking, secured-lending and financial-recovery disputes arising in West Bengal and adjoining areas. The Kolkata centre currently operates through DRT-I, DRT-II and DRT-III, with the tribunals located in Jeevan Sudha Building at 42-C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata. Official cause lists show DRT-I on the ninth floor, DRT-II on the seventh floor and DRT-III on the eighth floor.
The jurisdiction of these tribunals, however, is not simply divided according to the name “Kolkata”. It is determined by government notifications specifying the geographical areas assigned to each tribunal. This jurisdictional structure underwent an important change in December 2025 when the Ministry of Finance amended the territorial allocation of the DRTs in West Bengal through Gazette Notification S.O. 5807(E), dated 16 December 2025.
Under the amended arrangement, DRT-II Kolkata covers all districts of West Bengal except Kolkata City, Howrah, Hooghly, South 24 Parganas and several northern and eastern districts that were specifically assigned elsewhere, as well as the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. DRT-III Kolkata’s notified jurisdiction includes specified police-station areas of Kolkata City together with South 24 Parganas. The districts of Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri, Coochbehar, Uttar Dinajpur, Dakshin Dinajpur, Malda, Murshidabad, Birbhum, Alipurduar and Kalimpong were placed within the jurisdiction of the DRT at Siliguri.
The December 2025 jurisdictional change has had practical consequences for pending litigation. A judgment of the Calcutta High Court in August 2026 examined the transfer of a pending SARFAESI proceeding from DRT-II Kolkata to DRT Siliguri following the change in jurisdiction. The case concerned proceedings that had originally been filed before DRT-II Kolkata in 2018 in relation to Birbhum. The court recorded that the new notification itself was prospective, while the subsequent transfer of pending matters was undertaken by the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, invoking the power under Section 17A(2) of the RDB Act.
The legal foundation of DRT proceedings is principally the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The Act establishes the tribunals, defines their jurisdiction and powers, provides for applications by banks and financial institutions, establishes appellate mechanisms and lays down procedures for recovery. Section 17 deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the tribunals, while Section 18 places restrictions on the jurisdiction of ordinary courts in matters falling within the statutory scheme. Section 19 provides the mechanism for applications to the tribunal.
A typical DRT proceeding initiated by a bank or financial institution is known as an Original Application, commonly abbreviated as OA. The official Kolkata cause lists demonstrate the continuing volume and variety of such proceedings. Recent listings include applications by banks such as Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, Indian Bank, Bank of India, IDBI Bank and other financial institutions against borrowers, companies and guarantors.
DRT proceedings are not limited to a straightforward demand for payment. Depending on the circumstances, proceedings can involve claims against principal borrowers and guarantors, recovery certificates, attachment of property, interim applications, settlement applications and disputes concerning enforcement of security. The RDB Act gives the tribunal significant procedural and recovery-related powers, including powers concerning attachment and, in appropriate circumstances, appointment of a receiver.
Another major category of litigation before DRTs arises under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, better known as the SARFAESI Act. The Ministry of Finance describes the SARFAESI Act as legislation dealing with securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interests.
The interaction between the RDB Act and SARFAESI Act is particularly important for borrowers facing enforcement measures involving secured assets. A borrower or other aggrieved person may challenge measures taken under the SARFAESI framework before the DRT under the statutory mechanism. Recent Kolkata cause lists show numerous Securitisation Applications, or SAs, involving disputes between borrowers and banks, non-banking financial companies and asset reconstruction companies.
The distinction between an OA and an SA is therefore significant. An OA generally represents a recovery proceeding initiated by an eligible financial institution, while an SA is commonly associated with a challenge to measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. The exact legal remedy depends on the facts, the statutory provision involved, the nature of the financial institution’s action and the stage reached in the recovery process.
DRT Kolkata also illustrates the increasing importance of digital and hybrid judicial administration. Official cause lists show that advocates and litigants may, depending on the particular listing and directions of the tribunal, participate through physical or virtual modes. The Kolkata tribunals have issued instructions concerning virtual hearings, document sharing, audio and video arrangements and electronic participation.
The official cause lists also reveal that DRT proceedings can involve several interlocutory applications within a single case. Applications may seek stay of sale, stay of recovery measures, preponement or advance hearing, withdrawal pursuant to settlement, recall of orders and other directions. This reflects the procedural complexity that can develop after a financial dispute reaches the tribunal.
The importance of timely action becomes particularly apparent in disputes involving auctions and secured properties. In an August 2026 matter concerning proceedings before DRT-II Kolkata, the Calcutta High Court recorded that an auction sale had already taken place, the sale had been confirmed and a sale certificate had been issued. The court permitted the concerned applicants to pursue appropriate steps before the tribunal while directing expeditious consideration of the application.
This demonstrates why borrowers and guarantors involved in bank-recovery disputes need to pay close attention to statutory timelines, notices, possession measures, auction schedules and tribunal orders. The legal consequences can change substantially as enforcement progresses from demand and classification of an account to possession, auction and confirmation of sale. The availability and nature of a remedy can also depend on the precise statutory provision and procedural stage.
The tribunal system was introduced against the background of concerns that ordinary civil litigation was not providing sufficiently specialised or expeditious mechanisms for recovery of bank and financial-institution dues. The government’s stated objective remains speedy adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.
At the same time, the DRT is not simply a debt-collection office. It is a statutory adjudicatory forum where the claims of financial institutions and objections or defences raised by borrowers and other affected parties are examined within the applicable legal framework. The tribunal’s role therefore sits at the intersection of financial recovery, secured-credit enforcement and adjudication of disputes arising from those processes.
The appellate structure is equally important. Orders of a DRT may be subject to the statutory appellate mechanism before the concerned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, subject to the conditions prescribed by law. The Ministry of Finance identifies DRATs as the appellate institutions within the DRT framework, while the RDB Act contains provisions governing appeals and related requirements.
The Kolkata legal environment has also seen questions concerning the relationship between DRT remedies and proceedings before constitutional courts. In the August 2026 Calcutta High Court case involving Lalani and Company and HDFC Bank, the court considered an Article 227 challenge while noting the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The case illustrates the continuing importance of understanding the statutory appellate and alternative-remedy framework before approaching a constitutional court.
The December 2025 territorial reorganisation adds another layer of importance for litigants. The notified jurisdiction can determine where a new matter should be filed, while pending proceedings may be affected by administrative transfer arrangements. The Calcutta High Court’s August 2026 judgment records that the DRAT Kolkata Chairperson exercised the power under Section 17A(2) to transfer cases following the jurisdictional change.
For anyone searching for “DRT Kolkata”, it is therefore important to identify the particular tribunal, the location and nature of the underlying dispute, the relevant district, the case number and whether the proceeding is an OA, SA, TSA or another category. Official cause lists published through the DRT system provide a useful way to verify listings and procedural information rather than relying solely on third-party case directories.
DRT Kolkata remains a central institution in the recovery of banking and financial-sector dues in eastern India, but its jurisdiction is not static. The December 2025 notification and the litigation that followed show how changes in territorial jurisdiction can affect both new filings and the administration of existing cases. For borrowers, banks, guarantors, auction purchasers and legal practitioners, checking the applicable jurisdiction and the latest tribunal orders is consequently an essential part of navigating a DRT matter.
The broader significance of DRT Kolkata lies in this specialised role: it provides a dedicated statutory forum for disputes connected with financial recovery while operating within a wider legal structure that includes the RDB Act, SARFAESI Act and the appellate jurisdiction of the DRAT. Its daily cause lists show that the tribunal deals with a substantial range of banking disputes, from original recovery applications to challenges involving secured assets, auctions, settlements and interim relief.
For any particular DRT Kolkata case, however, general information cannot substitute for examination of the actual pleadings, notices, orders, statutory provisions and case history. The applicable remedy and deadline can differ considerably depending on whether the matter concerns an original bank recovery proceeding, SARFAESI enforcement, an auction, a recovery certificate, a guarantor’s liability, a settlement or an appeal.
