Full DRT and DRAT representation for Tamil Nadu borrowers — Original Application defence, Securitisation Application, cross-Original Applications, DRAT appeals with the mandatory deposit strategy, and coordinated writs at the Madras High Court.
This page is for general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice. Every NPA / SARFAESI / DRT matter is fact-specific — speak to a qualified advisor before acting.
Tamil Nadu is the only state with three functional DRT stations — Chennai (3 benches), Coimbatore, Madurai — plus DRAT Chennai as appellate seat. A typical Original Application under the DRT Act (RDDBFI) is disposed in 12–24 months on merits; a Securitisation Application under Section 17 SARFAESI is often disposed faster where interim orders are granted early. Court fee ceiling is ₹1.5 lakh.
Under Section 18 SARFAESI, the borrower must deposit 50% of the debt determined by the DRT (reducible to 25% on prayer) before a DRAT appeal is heard on merits. Structuring the pre-deposit — cash + bank guarantee + partial waiver — is a specialised drafting exercise; a poorly drafted waiver plea is the most common reason DRAT appeals collapse.
A DRT counter-claim / cross-OA can be filed against the bank for wrongful classification, breach of the RBI IRAC Circular, or wrongful appropriation of receivables. In Tamil Nadu, Indian Bank and Indian Overseas Bank exposures often involve receivables cross-holding — a well-timed cross-OA materially improves settlement leverage.
Where the DRT is unable to grant early interim relief and the auction is imminent, an Article 226 writ before the Madras High Court can be filed on narrow jurisdictional grounds. We coordinate DRT + HC strategy so the pleadings are consistent.
Writ jurisdiction seat.
Tamil Nadu is the only state with three functional DRT stations — Chennai (3 benches), Coimbatore, Madurai — plus DRAT Chennai as appellate seat.
Tirupur knitwear cluster; Coimbatore textiles & pumps; Sivakasi printing & fireworks; Chennai auto ancillaries
Auction / procedural note. Madras HC is proactive with writs where auctions are conducted without proper Rule 8(6) notice — a 30-day clear notice defect regularly leads to auction being set aside.
