DRT Delhi: Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jurisdiction, Powers and Role in Bank Recovery Cases
The Debt Recovery Tribunals in Delhi occupy a central position in India’s specialised debt-recovery system, dealing with disputes involving banks, financial institutions, borrowers, guarantors and other parties connected with secured and unsecured financial claims. The official tribunal records currently identify three separate forums in Delhi—Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi; Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi; and Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi. All three are listed at the 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. The official 2026 cause lists show continuing proceedings before all three tribunals, covering Original Applications, Securitisation Applications, transferred matters, interlocutory applications and recovery-certificate proceedings.
The legal foundation of the DRT system is principally the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, commonly known as the RDB Act. The Department of Financial Services explains that DRTs were established to provide specialised and expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The system also operates alongside the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, or SARFAESI Act, which provides the statutory framework for securitisation, reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interests.
The three Delhi tribunals are not simply interchangeable courts. Their territorial allocation is important when a new case is filed or transferred. Official DRT orders refer to the Department of Financial Services Gazette notification dated October 4, 2022, which changed the jurisdictional arrangement among the Delhi tribunals. The official records show, for example, that an Original Application filed before DRT-I was directed toward DRT-II because the relevant branch location at Baprola, New Delhi, fell within DRT-II’s assigned jurisdiction. Another official record similarly records transfer of a matter because New Moti Nagar in West Delhi fell within DRT-II rather than DRT-I.
This division of jurisdiction makes the correct identification of the concerned DRT particularly important for banks, borrowers and lawyers. A case filed before the wrong tribunal can face an objection concerning territorial jurisdiction and may ultimately be transferred to the appropriate Delhi DRT. The official records therefore demonstrate that the question of which Delhi DRT has jurisdiction can depend on the applicable notification and the location relevant to the particular financial transaction or proceeding. Parties should verify the latest jurisdictional notification and official case records rather than relying on a general assumption that every Delhi matter belongs to DRT-I.
One of the principal forms of litigation before the Delhi DRTs is the Original Application, commonly abbreviated as OA. The Department of Financial Services defines an OA as an Original Application filed by a bank or financial institution. Such proceedings generally concern claims for recovery of money from borrowers and other persons who may be legally liable for the financial obligation. Current Delhi cause lists demonstrate the wide range of institutions using this mechanism, including public-sector banks, private banks, housing-finance institutions and asset reconstruction companies.
The 2026 records provide numerous examples of fresh recovery proceedings. DRT-I’s July 15, 2026 cause list included an OA filed by Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. involving a claim of ₹7.45 crore and another OA filed by Bank of Maharashtra involving approximately ₹25.94 lakh. The same list contained proceedings involving Canara Bank, ICICI Bank, State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, HDFC Bank and Bank of Baroda. These examples illustrate that Delhi DRT proceedings can involve both relatively smaller commercial or individual claims and substantially larger financial disputes.
Securitisation Applications, or SAs, form another major part of the Delhi DRT workload. According to the Department of Financial Services, an SA is an application under the SARFAESI Act filed by borrowers, guarantors or third parties. These proceedings can challenge measures taken by secured creditors in the enforcement of security interests. The official 2026 Delhi cause lists show numerous SAs involving banks and financial companies, frequently accompanied by applications seeking interim protection, stay of proceedings, postponement or other directions.
The urgency of some SARFAESI disputes is apparent from the Delhi records. A DRT-II cause list from July 6, 2026, for example, included fresh SAs involving Bank of India where applications for stay were filed in connection with scheduled auctions. One matter concerned a claimed amount of approximately ₹46.28 lakh, while another involved approximately ₹66.11 lakh. The listing of a stay application does not itself establish that a stay was granted; the actual judicial order must be examined to determine whether interim protection was ultimately allowed or rejected.
Another DRT-II cause list from May 21, 2026 illustrates the variety of proceedings handled alongside fresh SAs and OAs. It included an SA against Hinduja Housing Finance Limited involving a stated amount of ₹13.80 lakh, an application concerning withdrawal of a recovery certificate in an Axis Bank matter, a direction application involving Corporation Bank, a review application in a Bank of Baroda matter and a fresh SA against Axis Bank involving a stated amount of ₹6.08 crore. Such listings demonstrate that DRT litigation frequently involves multiple procedural applications connected with an underlying financial dispute.
Delhi’s DRT system also handles transferred applications and matters received from other tribunals. The official records use classifications such as TSA and TA for transferred proceedings. These matters can originate from older litigation or be moved between Delhi DRTs when jurisdictional issues arise. DRT-I’s July 2026 cause list, for example, contains multiple transferred matters alongside fresh OAs and SAs, while official orders refer to transfers between DRT-I, DRT-II and DRT-III following the post-2022 jurisdictional arrangement.
Recovery proceedings do not necessarily end when a DRT determines a bank or financial institution’s claim. The Recovery Officer stage can become important where a recovery certificate has been issued. The official DRT-III Recovery Officer cause list of May 4, 2026 contained recovery certificates connected with cases originating in DRT-I and DRT-II. The list included matters involving Canara Bank, Punjab National Bank, SASF, Central Bank of India, Bank of India, IDBI Bank, Pegasus Asset Reconstruction, LIC Housing Finance and Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company. This demonstrates the continuing procedural link between adjudication before the tribunal and subsequent recovery proceedings.
Some of these recovery matters are based on OAs that are many years old. The May 2026 DRT-III Recovery Officer list, for example, includes a recovery certificate arising from an OA filed in 1998, alongside certificates connected with OAs filed in 2011, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019. This provides an important illustration of how financial-recovery litigation can continue through different procedural stages long after the original recovery application was filed.
Asset reconstruction companies are also prominent participants in the Delhi DRT system. Current records contain proceedings involving entities such as Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company, Omkara Assets Reconstruction and other financial-asset purchasers or reconstruction companies. Their presence reflects the broader structure of India’s stressed-asset and recovery market, where financial assets may be transferred or managed by specialised asset reconstruction companies.
The Delhi DRTs have also adopted hybrid and virtual hearing arrangements. DRT-II’s official 2026 cause list states that hybrid hearings had resumed and provides Cisco Webex details for parties intending to participate virtually. DRT-I’s cause list similarly provides a Webex facility, with hearings scheduled from 10:30 a.m. in the cited listing. DRT-III recovery proceedings have also published Webex information alongside physical-hearing arrangements. Because hearing arrangements can change from one listing to another, parties should always rely on the latest official cause list or specific tribunal direction for their case.
The nature of cases appearing before the Delhi tribunals shows that DRT litigation extends across individuals, proprietorships, companies, societies, logistics businesses, trading enterprises, real-estate entities and other commercial borrowers. Proceedings may also involve guarantors, auction purchasers and third parties claiming an interest in secured property. In one DRT-I matter listed in July 2026, applications included a request to implead an auction purchaser and another application seeking to restrain further action concerning the secured asset.
Interim applications can therefore become an important part of a DRT case. Parties may seek stay orders, amendment of pleadings, condonation of delay, early or preponed hearings, recall of orders, directions concerning documents or property, and other procedural relief. The existence of such an application should always be distinguished from the result of that application. A cause list tells the reader what has been listed before the tribunal; it does not, by itself, establish that the requested relief has been granted. The final position must be established from the corresponding judicial order.
The Department of Financial Services’ national data also illustrates the scale of the DRT system in which the Delhi tribunals operate. Government data records 36,395 OA cases disposed of during financial year 2023-24, involving ₹1,64,110.44 crore, along with 16,146 SA cases involving ₹1,41,684.93 crore. The figures are national DRT figures rather than Delhi-specific statistics, but they demonstrate the volume and financial significance of the statutory debt-recovery framework.
For borrowers, guarantors and property owners facing SARFAESI action, the distinction between an OA and an SA is particularly important. An OA generally represents the recovery claim brought by a bank or financial institution, whereas an SA is a statutory proceeding associated with measures taken under the SARFAESI framework. The procedural strategy, limitation issues, documents and available remedies can differ depending on the type of proceeding, the nature of the security and the stage at which the matter has reached the tribunal.
For banks and financial institutions, DRT proceedings provide a specialised mechanism for pursuing recovery claims, while the SARFAESI framework can provide a separate route for enforcement of security interests subject to the statutory requirements. In many cases, the tribunal record may therefore contain several interconnected proceedings, including an OA, an SA, interim applications and subsequent recovery-certificate proceedings. Understanding the complete procedural history is often necessary before assessing the current position of a case.
The Delhi DRT system is also connected to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal structure. The DRTs are first-instance specialised tribunals under the statutory framework, while DRATs provide the appellate forum for matters falling within their jurisdiction. The Department of Financial Services currently states that India has 39 functioning DRTs and five DRATs.
For anyone searching for “DRT Delhi,” it is therefore important to identify which of the three Delhi tribunals is involved. DRT-I, DRT-II and DRT-III operate from Jeevan Tara Building on Parliament Street, but their jurisdictional allocation is not identical. Official 2026 records demonstrate that cases can be transferred when the relevant location falls within another Delhi DRT’s jurisdiction. Checking the case number, tribunal designation, latest cause list and applicable jurisdiction notification is consequently more reliable than searching only by the parties’ names.
The current official records show that DRT Delhi remains a highly active part of India’s debt-recovery infrastructure. During 2026, the Delhi tribunals have continued listing fresh OAs and SAs, applications for stay and other interim relief, transferred matters, review and direction applications, and recovery-certificate proceedings. The records also show participation by major banks, housing-finance companies, asset reconstruction companies, businesses, individuals and other parties affected by financial recovery actions.
The official location recorded for the three Delhi DRTs is the 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. Since cause lists and hearing arrangements are updated over time, anyone involved in a live DRT Delhi matter should verify the latest official record before relying on a hearing date, virtual-hearing facility, case status, jurisdictional allocation or procedural direction. The official DRT records provide the most direct source for determining what is presently listed in an individual proceeding.
