DRT Jabalpur: Debt Recovery Tribunal for Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh — Jurisdiction, Powers and the 2026 Vacancy Crisis
The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Jabalpur is a specialised adjudicatory forum dealing with disputes and proceedings involving recovery of debts owed to banks and financial institutions, as well as important proceedings arising under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, commonly known as the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal has territorial jurisdiction covering Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, making it a significant forum for borrowers, guarantors, banks, financial institutions and asset reconstruction companies across the two states. Official DRT records identify its location as the 2nd and 3rd Floors of Sanchar Vikas Bhavan, BSNL Building, near Head Post Office, Residency Road, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482001.
The institutional foundation of the DRT system lies in the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The legislation was enacted to establish specialised tribunals for the expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The Government of India currently describes the DRT and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal system as a specialised mechanism for resolving recovery-related disputes outside the ordinary civil-court structure. The Department of Financial Services states that 39 DRTs and five DRATs are functioning across India.
For Jabalpur, the tribunal’s geographical importance is particularly significant because its jurisdiction extends across both Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Official case records demonstrate that matters originating in Chhattisgarh have been adjudicated by DRT Jabalpur. For example, an official DRT judgment involved an Indian Bank recovery proceeding concerning borrowers and mortgaged property in Raipur and Durg, Chhattisgarh, and expressly described DRT Jabalpur as the tribunal for Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
The jurisdiction of a DRT is not simply a mechanism for a bank to obtain a money decree. Under the RDB Act, a bank or financial institution seeking recovery of a debt may institute an Original Application before the appropriate tribunal. Section 19 of the Act specifies several jurisdictional connecting factors, including the branch or office maintaining the account in which the debt is outstanding, the residence or business of the defendant, or where the cause of action wholly or partly arises. The statutory framework therefore determines where a recovery proceeding may properly be instituted.
The DRT framework also intersects closely with SARFAESI proceedings. When a secured creditor takes measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, an aggrieved borrower, guarantor or other eligible person can approach the DRT under Section 17 of that legislation. This is why DRT proceedings can become especially important in disputes concerning possession of secured property, sale or auction of secured assets, enforcement of security interests and challenges to measures taken by banks and financial institutions. The Government’s official description of the DRT system expressly identifies the RDB Act and SARFAESI Act as two central components of the debt-recovery framework.
An important change in the modern DRT framework is the monetary threshold. Government material states that the jurisdiction of DRTs was increased from ₹10 lakh to ₹20 lakh, allowing the tribunals to concentrate on higher-value recovery cases. The Department of Financial Services’ 2025–26 annual-report material also records this increase. Consequently, the nature of cases coming before DRTs includes substantial bank-recovery claims, secured-credit disputes and related proceedings involving borrowers and guarantors.
The scale of the national DRT system illustrates why these tribunals matter to India’s banking and financial sector. According to the Department of Financial Services, during financial year 2023–24, DRTs disposed of 36,395 Original Application cases involving approximately ₹1.64 lakh crore and 16,146 SARFAESI applications involving approximately ₹1.42 lakh crore. These figures are national figures rather than figures specifically for Jabalpur, but they demonstrate the substantial financial value of the disputes handled through the DRT mechanism.
For DRT Jabalpur, however, 2026 brought a significant administrative development concerning the office of the Presiding Officer. The post became vacant after the tenure of Presiding Officer Ram Niwas Patel ended on 20 September 2025. Government records subsequently reflected the vacancy and efforts to fill the post. A May 2025 vacancy circular specifically invited applications for the anticipated vacancy of Presiding Officer at DRT Jabalpur.
The vacancy became a matter of practical concern for litigants because DRT proceedings depend upon the availability of a Presiding Officer to hear and decide cases. In May 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded that the DRT Jabalpur post was vacant and that earlier additional-charge arrangements involving other DRTs had also become unavailable. The Court noted the resulting difficulty for litigants awaiting adjudication and requested that the Central Government make a posting or additional-charge arrangement.
The Central Government subsequently issued an important arrangement in June 2026. According to the Gazette notification reproduced in later Madhya Pradesh High Court proceedings, the Presiding Officer of DRT-2 Ahmedabad, Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay, was assigned additional charge of DRT Jabalpur with immediate effect for six months, or until a regular Presiding Officer was appointed, or until further orders, whichever occurred first. The arrangement was intended to address the administrative vacancy while maintaining access to the statutory forum.
The arrangement has particular significance for litigants because it changed the practical manner in which matters connected with DRT Jabalpur could be heard. A June 2026 Madhya Pradesh High Court decision recorded that the Central Government had authorised an additional-charge arrangement and that matters falling within DRT Jabalpur’s jurisdiction were to be handled by the designated Presiding Officer through the alternative arrangement. The order also referred to continued filing and registry arrangements at Jabalpur and the use of virtual or hybrid hearings.
The situation has also appeared in cases involving SARFAESI enforcement in both Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. In July 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered a matter in which petitioners argued that they were unable to obtain the statutory remedy before DRT Jabalpur because of its earlier non-functioning. The Court was informed about the June 2026 Gazette arrangement assigning additional charge to the Presiding Officer of DRT-2 Ahmedabad. The case illustrates how administrative vacancies at specialised tribunals can have direct consequences where borrowers are simultaneously facing possession or other enforcement measures by secured creditors.
A similar issue arose before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in August 2026, when the Court again considered the additional-charge arrangement for DRT Jabalpur and the availability of the statutory remedy before the tribunal. These proceedings indicate that the question of DRT Jabalpur’s functioning was not merely an administrative matter; it had become directly relevant to litigants seeking relief against financial institutions and SARFAESI measures.
The tribunal’s work therefore sits at an important intersection between the interests of financial institutions seeking recovery and the legal remedies available to borrowers, guarantors and other affected parties. A bank may use the statutory recovery framework to pursue outstanding debt, while a borrower may challenge an enforcement measure where the law provides a remedy. The DRT is consequently not simply a “bank recovery court”; it is a specialised statutory forum in which competing legal claims arising from debt recovery and secured-asset enforcement are adjudicated under the governing legislation.
Technology has also become increasingly important to the functioning of DRT Jabalpur. The official DRT system provides electronic case and cause-list facilities, while the Government’s June 2026 additional-charge arrangement contemplated virtual or hybrid hearings. The official DRT website also states that e-filing of pleadings by applicants is mandatory and that pleadings submitted through other forms will not be taken on record. This digital infrastructure has become particularly relevant when a tribunal’s Presiding Officer is handling additional responsibilities from another location.
For lawyers and litigants dealing with DRT Jabalpur, the distinction between an Original Application and a Securitisation Application is particularly important. Original Applications are generally associated with recovery proceedings initiated by banks and financial institutions under the RDB Act, while Securitisation Applications commonly arise from challenges to measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. The Government itself uses the abbreviations OA for Original Applications filed by banks and financial institutions and SA for applications under the SARFAESI Act filed by borrowers, guarantors or third parties.
The procedural position can become especially urgent when a secured asset is facing possession or auction. The June 2026 administrative instructions, as reproduced in court proceedings, specifically contemplated urgent handling where there was an imminent asset auction or forced physical possession under the SARFAESI Act. This reflects the practical reality that delay in a debt-recovery tribunal can sometimes have immediate consequences for property rights and financial interests.
As of October 2026, the publicly available judicial record indicates that DRT Jabalpur’s Presiding Officer vacancy has been addressed through an additional-charge arrangement rather than through a clearly documented permanent appointment in the sources reviewed here. The June 2026 Gazette arrangement was for six months, subject to earlier appointment of a regular Presiding Officer or further orders. Accordingly, anyone relying on the tribunal’s present functioning should verify the latest official DRT notice, cause list and administrative order before filing or attending a matter, because the operational arrangement can change before the six-month period expires.
DRT Jabalpur consequently remains an important specialised forum for Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, particularly in large-value bank recovery disputes and SARFAESI litigation. Its significance extends beyond Jabalpur itself because its territorial jurisdiction encompasses two states and its decisions can affect borrowers, guarantors, banks, financial institutions and secured assets throughout the region. The developments of 2025 and 2026 also demonstrate a broader institutional challenge faced by specialised tribunals: the effectiveness of a statutory remedy depends not only on the legislation creating it, but also on timely appointments, functioning registries, accessible hearings and adequate judicial capacity.
For the public, the most important point is that a dispute involving a bank loan, mortgage, secured property or SARFAESI enforcement should not be treated as an ordinary private dispute without first identifying the applicable statutory forum and limitation requirements. DRT jurisdiction, SARFAESI remedies, civil-court jurisdiction, High Court remedies and appellate procedures operate within a detailed statutory framework. The specific remedy available in an individual case depends on the nature of the action taken by the financial institution, the amount and type of debt, the stage of recovery proceedings and the applicable statutory provisions. The official DRT portal and current court orders should therefore be checked for the latest procedural and administrative position before taking legal action.
