The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with a notice issued by the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Lucknow, holding that the Registrar acted well within his legal authority. The Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, finding no jurisdictional error or injustice in the process followed by the Tribunal.
The ruling came from Justice Subhash Vidyarthi while hearing a challenge to a show-cause notice issued in a securitisation application under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had approached the DRT, Lucknow, by filing Securitisation Application No. 1144 of 2025, challenging bank action under the Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. On November 11, 2025, the Registrar of the DRT issued a notice to the opposite parties, asking them to appear and show cause why the application should not be allowed.
Read also:- Leopard Attack or Murder? Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Key Accused in Shocking Yavat Killing Case
The petitioner moved the High Court contending that the Registrar had no power to issue such a notice. According to him, only the Presiding Officer of the DRT could admit, hear, or issue directions in a securitisation application. He argued that listing the matter before the Registrar caused unnecessary delay and prejudice.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioner insisted that the Registrar’s act amounted to exercising judicial power without jurisdiction. Even if no actual harm was caused, he argued, an action taken without authority could still be challenged before the High Court.
On facts, however, the record showed that the matter had already been placed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT on December 1, 2025, before the High Court petition was even listed.
Court’s Observations
After examining the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the Court found no merit in the challenge. Justice Vidyarthi noted that the Rules clearly empower the Registrar to scrutinise applications, fix dates, and issue notices, subject to directions of the Presiding Officer.
“The power to issue notice to a defendant has specifically been conferred upon the Registrar,” the bench observed, adding that such notices are a necessary step before a securitisation application can be heard.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sends Dubai-Based Couple to Mediation, Flags Child's Stay Away from Parents as "Objectionable"
The Court also rejected the argument that the notice caused prejudice. It pointed out that the petitioner failed to show any legal injury resulting from the brief delay.
“The objection raised by the petitioner appears to be self-harming,” the Court remarked, noting that without service of notice, the application itself could not proceed.
The judgment also revisited the limited scope of interference under Article 227. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is meant to correct grave injustice or clear lack of jurisdiction, not to address technical or academic objections.
Read also:- Scholarship received by wife before marriage cannot take away husband's rights: Rajasthan High Court
“The notice has not caused a failure of justice or grave injustice, which is a sine qua non for maintaining a petition under Article 227,” the Court held.
Decision
Concluding that the Registrar of the DRT acted within the powers granted under the Procedure Rules, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage.
While the Court refrained from imposing costs, it cautioned against filing frivolous petitions that waste judicial time and emphasized the responsibility of advocates as officers of the court.
Case Title:- Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow & Another
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 7466 of 2025
Date of Judgment: January 19, 2026
