DRT Hyderabad: Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jurisdiction, Powers and Role in Bank Recovery Cases
The Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad is an important specialised forum for adjudicating debt-recovery disputes involving banks, financial institutions, borrowers, guarantors and parties affected by enforcement of secured financial assets. Hyderabad currently has two separate tribunals, identified in the official records as Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad and Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. DRT-I is located on the 3rd Floor of Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad-500001, while DRT-II is located on the 1st Floor of the same complex. Official 2026 cause lists show both tribunals actively handling Original Applications, Securitisation Applications, interlocutory applications, transferred matters and other recovery-related 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 states that DRTs were established with the specific objective of providing 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 enforcement of security interests and related proceedings. The Government currently states that 39 DRTs and five Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals are functioning across India.
The existence of two DRTs in Hyderabad makes jurisdiction an important issue for litigants. A 2022 judgment discussing the Government’s January 25, 2017 notification recorded the establishment of DRT-II Hyderabad after the bifurcation of the former composite State of Andhra Pradesh. The judgment explained that DRT-I Hyderabad had jurisdiction over areas entirely within Telangana, while DRT-II Hyderabad had a specified jurisdiction that included areas in Telangana as well as four districts of Andhra Pradesh under the then-notified arrangement. Because jurisdictional notifications and administrative arrangements are legally significant, parties should verify the applicable notification and current tribunal records for a particular case rather than assuming that every Hyderabad matter belongs to DRT-I or DRT-II.
The jurisdictional history of DRT Hyderabad is closely connected with the reorganisation of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Before the bifurcation of the State, Hyderabad already had a DRT established for the composite State. The 2017 Government notification subsequently created DRT-II Hyderabad and renamed the existing tribunal DRT-I Hyderabad, while the existing tribunal at Visakhapatnam became the DRT for Andhra Pradesh. The judicial record discussing that notification also noted the special jurisdiction assigned to DRT-II Hyderabad over certain districts in Andhra Pradesh.
One of the principal categories of proceedings before DRT Hyderabad is the Original Application, commonly abbreviated as OA. Under the DRT framework, banks and financial institutions can institute OAs seeking recovery of debts. Current 2026 records show proceedings involving State Bank of India, Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, HDFC Bank, Dhanlaxmi Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Bank of India and other financial institutions. These proceedings involve both individual borrowers and commercial entities.
The scale and variety of DRT-I’s current docket can be seen in its 2026 cause lists. An April 15, 2026 list included an OA filed by Union Bank of India against R.R. Gundlapalli, another Union Bank matter involving Bharath Furnitures, an SBI proceeding involving Sri Varalakshmi Seed Processing Plant and a Canara Bank case involving Vaagdevi Educational Society. The same list contained fresh Securitisation Applications involving Equitas Small Finance Bank, IKF Home Finance and Hinduja Housing Finance.
Fresh matters continued to be listed later in the year. The July 14, 2026 DRT-I cause list included Securitisation Applications against Union Bank of India, Hinduja Housing Finance, Shriram Finance, Union Bank of India and PNB Housing Finance, along with an Original Application filed by Dhanlaxmi Bank. These proceedings demonstrate the continuing flow of both bank-recovery claims and borrower or affected-party challenges under the SARFAESI framework.
DRT-II Hyderabad similarly handles a substantial volume of recovery and SARFAESI litigation. Its July 20, 2026 cause list included proceedings involving Indian Bank, State Bank of India, SMFG India Home Finance, Aditya Birla Finance, Authum Investment and Infrastructure, Shriram Finance, Canara Bank, ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank and ARCIL. The list contained both Securitisation Applications and Original Applications, demonstrating the mixed nature of the tribunal’s docket.
Securitisation Applications, or SAs, are particularly important in Hyderabad DRT litigation. The Department of Financial Services explains that an SA is an application under the SARFAESI Act filed by borrowers, guarantors or third parties. Such applications may challenge measures taken by secured creditors in enforcing security interests. The current Hyderabad records show numerous SAs accompanied by applications for stay, condonation of delay, directions, recall, amendment and other interim reliefs.
The 2026 records provide several examples of applications seeking interim protection. DRT-II’s June 17 cause list included fresh SAs with applications for stay against Shriram Finance and other financial institutions. Its July 20 list contained a fresh SA by P. Varalakshmi against ICICI Home Finance with an application for stay, while another matter involved an application for stay against Shriram Finance. The listing of such an application does not itself establish that the tribunal granted a stay; the actual judicial order is required to determine the outcome.
DRT-I’s records show similar activity. Its March 24, 2026 cause list included fresh SAs against AU Small Finance Bank, IIFL Home Finance, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company and Central Bank of India. The same list contained an OA filed by Canara Bank and older matters at different stages. This illustrates how DRT proceedings can combine new cases with long-running recovery litigation.
The Hyderabad tribunals also handle applications connected with procedural and interim issues within existing cases. These can include applications for condonation of delay, recalling orders, amendment, specific directions, appointment of commissioners, stay and other reliefs. DRT-II’s July 20, 2026 cause list, for example, contains interlocutory applications connected with several SAs and OAs, including applications for stay and directions. Such applications can materially affect the procedural course of a case, but their mere listing should not be confused with the relief ultimately granted.
The records also show that DRT Hyderabad handles matters that have remained pending for several years. DRT-II’s July 2026 list included TA/2392/2017 involving UCO Bank and an earlier borrower, while its records also contain OAs dating from 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024. DRT-I similarly continues to list older OAs alongside fresh proceedings. This demonstrates that a recovery case can continue through multiple procedural stages long after its original filing.
Recovery proceedings form another important part of the DRT structure. After adjudication of a recovery claim, the statutory recovery mechanism can become relevant through a Recovery Certificate and proceedings before the Recovery Officer. This means that a DRT case should not necessarily be considered finished merely because the tribunal has determined the underlying debt claim. The subsequent recovery stage can involve enforcement-related proceedings concerning the amount certified as recoverable.
Asset reconstruction companies are also visible in the Hyderabad DRT docket. The July 20, 2026 DRT-II cause list included ARCIL in an Original Application involving Sulochanamma Ginning Pressing Factory. Other matters involve entities such as Authum Investment and Infrastructure and other financial-asset companies. Their participation reflects the wider financial-recovery market in which stressed financial assets can be assigned to or managed by specialised asset reconstruction companies.
The Hyderabad tribunals’ workload also extends beyond conventional commercial borrowers. Official 2026 records contain proceedings involving individuals, proprietorships, companies, educational societies, manufacturing and trading businesses, seed-processing enterprises, furniture businesses and other commercial organisations. This demonstrates that DRT litigation can arise from a wide range of lending relationships rather than being restricted to major corporate insolvency or large institutional borrowers.
Virtual and hybrid hearings have become an established part of the Hyderabad DRT’s operating arrangements. DRT-I’s 2026 cause lists publish Zoho Meeting information for hybrid hearings, while DRT-II publishes Webex details. The July 2026 DRT-I cause list, for example, expressly provided a Zoho Meeting facility and instructed participants to enter their full name and case number before joining. DRT-II’s July cause list similarly provided Webex information and instructions for virtual participation. Parties should rely on the latest cause list or specific tribunal direction because hearing arrangements may change.
The digital cause-list system is particularly important for checking the current procedural stage of a case. A cause list can identify whether a matter is being taken up for fresh hearing, orders, evidence, arguments, counter, compliance or interlocutory applications. However, a cause-list entry is not itself a judicial order. For questions about whether a stay was granted, an application was allowed or dismissed, a Recovery Certificate was issued or another substantive direction was passed, the actual tribunal order should be consulted.
For borrowers and guarantors, proceedings before DRT Hyderabad can have significant financial and property-related consequences. An OA generally concerns the recovery claim of a bank or financial institution, while an SA concerns the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI framework to persons affected by specified enforcement measures. Depending on the case, proceedings may also involve secured property, guarantees, auction processes, interim protection, limitation questions and other procedural issues.
For banks and financial institutions, DRT proceedings provide a specialised statutory mechanism for pursuing recovery claims. The Government’s Department of Financial Services describes the DRT system as having been created specifically to facilitate expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. Nationally, the Government reported that during financial year 2023-24, DRTs disposed of 36,395 OA cases involving ₹1,64,110.44 crore and 16,146 SA cases involving ₹1,41,684.93 crore. These figures are national figures and should not be interpreted as Hyderabad-specific statistics.
The appellate structure is another important part of the DRT framework. DRTs function as specialised first-instance tribunals, while Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals provide the statutory appellate forum subject to the requirements of the applicable legislation. The Government currently lists five DRATs functioning in India alongside the 39 DRTs.
The territorial-jurisdiction question is particularly important for Hyderabad because of the separate roles of DRT-I and DRT-II. The 2017 notification discussed by the Telangana High Court created DRT-II Hyderabad and specified its territorial area, including particular locations in Hyderabad and districts in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. A later High Court record also considered a challenge concerning the territorial jurisdiction of DRT-II Hyderabad in a SARFAESI matter. These cases demonstrate that jurisdiction can itself become a legal issue and should be determined from the applicable statutory notification and the facts of the individual proceeding.
The present official addresses are DRT-I Hyderabad at the 3rd Floor, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad-500001, and DRT-II Hyderabad at the 1st Floor, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad-500001. Government records also identify both tribunals at the Triveni Complex in Abids. The official 2026 cause lists confirm that both tribunals continue to operate from these locations while supporting hybrid hearing arrangements.
For anyone searching for “DRT Hyderabad,” identifying the correct tribunal is therefore the first practical step. A party should establish whether the case is before DRT-I or DRT-II, check the complete OA or SA number, review the latest cause list and then examine the latest judicial order before drawing conclusions about the status of the dispute. This is especially important where an application for stay, recall, amendment, condonation or another interim remedy has been filed.
The 2026 official records show DRT Hyderabad functioning as an active centre of specialised financial litigation. DRT-I and DRT-II continue to handle fresh Original Applications, Securitisation Applications, interlocutory applications, transferred matters, evidence, arguments and orders involving banks, financial institutions, borrowers, guarantors, companies and other affected parties. The combination of RDB Act recovery proceedings and SARFAESI-related litigation makes the Hyderabad tribunals an important part of India’s broader debt-recovery framework.
Because tribunal cause lists and hearing arrangements can change, parties involved in a live DRT Hyderabad matter should verify the latest official case record before attending a hearing, filing a response, relying on a hearing date or assuming that an interim application has been allowed. The official DRT electronic records and the orders passed in the individual proceeding remain the most reliable sources for determining the current procedural position of a particular case.
