Procedure and Process: Key Features of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024

/
Articles and Blogposts /
Procedure and Process: Key Features of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024

I. Introduction

The Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024¹ that were introduced on 21st September, 2024 (Regulations) lay down detailed procedural rules governing Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) [Link to the Regulation]. The Department of Financial Services has itself emphasised the importance of procedural reforms in improving the functioning of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs). At a colloquium of Chairpersons of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals and Presiding Officers of DRTs², the Secretary, DFS highlighted several initiatives aimed at reducing turnaround time in tribunal proceedings, including the adoption of revised Regulations, mandatory e-filing, video-conferencing, and hybrid hearings³. Despite their procedural significance, the Regulations have not been easily accessible in the public domain as highlighted in The DAKSH ‘State of the Tribunals Report⁴’. The limited public availability of the revised DRT Regulations undermines the effectiveness of these reforms. In a system where procedural efficiency is closely linked to the design of tribunal rules, the absence of publicly available regulations limits both compliance and scrutiny. In light of this, the present blog summarises some of the salient procedural features of the Regulations.

II. Standardising Pleadings before the DRT

The Regulations prescribe detailed requirements governing the filing of pleadings, affidavits, interlocutory applications, and miscellaneous applications before the Tribunal. They set out specifications relating to formatting, margins, font, spacing and pagination, and require the paper book to follow a prescribed sequence including the index, synopsis, list of dates and events, pleadings, supporting affidavit, interlocutory applications, annexures, authorisation documents and vakalatnama⁵. A copy of the paper book must also be served on the opposing party⁶. The Regulations also restrict the practice of seeking multiple reliefs in a single interlocutory application unless the reliefs are consequential in nature⁷.

III. Role of the Registrar

The Regulations also highlight the administrative role of the Registrar in managing proceedings before the Tribunal. Once a case is registered, it must first be placed before the Registrar for listing before the Presiding Officer⁸. The Registrar is also responsible for preparing and publishing the daily cause list for matters listed before the Registrar and the Recovery Officer⁹. The cause list must be generated online and notified on the e-DRT portal at least one day in advance. By formalising these functions, the Regulations recognise the Registrar as a key administrative node in the functioning of the Tribunal

IV. CIIRP: Timelines and Risk of Failure

Among the more detailed provisions in the Regulations are those governing the service of summons and notices. Service of summons is often the stage at which proceedings slow down, and the Regulations attempt to clarify both the modes of service and the evidentiary requirements for proving service. Under the Regulations, summons must be signed and stamped by the Registrar or an authorised officer and may be served along with the complete paper book¹⁰. The Regulations recognise several modes of service. Summons may be served personally (dasti), by registered post with acknowledgement due (AD), speed post, or courier service. Electronic service is also permitted through email with the leave of the Registrar¹¹. In cases where the pleadings are available digitally, the Registrar may provide a secure link to the paper book or allow the applicant to obtain a digital copy for the purpose of service¹². The framework also clarifies how service is to be effected on different categories of defendants. Service may be effected on an adult member of the defendant’s family residing with them¹³. Where the defendant is a company, corporation, or firm, summons may be served on the secretary, director, or principal officer of the company, or on the proprietor or partner of the firm at the address provided in the pleadings¹⁴. The Regulations also address situations where service becomes contentious.

Where summons are returned with an endorsement indicating refusal to accept service, or returned with the postal remark “unclaimed,” the Tribunal may declare that service has been duly effected if the summons were properly addressed and dispatched¹⁵.
Similarly, service through email or fax may be treated as valid upon proof of delivery¹⁶.

Where summons are returned unserved, the applicant must take fresh steps for service within seven days, failing which the matter may be placed before the Presiding Officer for appropriate directions¹⁷. Additionally, if counsel accepts summons on behalf of the defendant and undertakes to file a vakalatnama, separate service on the defendant may be dispensed with. The Regulations also provide for substituted service where ordinary service cannot be effected¹⁸. In such cases, summons may be affixed on a conspicuous part of the defendant’s residence or office. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the defendant is deliberately avoiding service, it may direct service through publication in newspapers circulating in the locality where the defendant last resided or carried on business.

V. From Judgment to Recovery Certificate

The Regulations also clarify the procedural stage of proceedings before the Tribunal regarding judgements¹⁹. Judgments and orders must be pronounced on the notified date and must bear the signature or digital signature of the Presiding Officer, Recovery Officer, or Registrar, as applicable. The orders and daily proceedings must be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website after pronouncement. Once the order is passed, a Recovery Certificate (R.C.) is generated through the e-DRT system in the prescribed form²⁰. The certificate is verified by the Registrar and signed by the Presiding Officer before being transmitted to the Recovery Officer for execution. The Recovery Officer then assigns a number to the certificate in the Recovery Certificate register and informs the Registry, which records it in the O.A. register. These provisions formally link the adjudicatory stage of proceedings with the execution process that follows before the Recovery Officer. Conclusion While many provisions in the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024 appear procedural or administrative, they collectively create a more structured framework for DRT proceedings. By standardising pleadings, clarifying the role of the Registrar, and prescribing detailed rules on service of summons, the Regulations aim to streamline the conduct of cases before the Tribunal. At the same time, greater accessibility of such procedural rules remains important. Making tribunal regulations publicly available would enhance transparency and allow practitioners, litigants, and researchers to better understand the procedural architecture governing DRT proceedings.

VI. Conclusion

While many provisions in the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024 appear procedural or administrative, they collectively create a more structured framework for DRT proceedings. By standardising pleadings, clarifying the role of the Registrar, and prescribing detailed rules on service of summons, the Regulations aim to streamline the conduct of cases before the Tribunal.

At the same time, greater accessibility of such procedural rules remains important. Making tribunal regulations publicly available would enhance transparency and allow practitioners, litigants, and researchers to better understand the procedural architecture governing DRT proceedings.

¹Press Information Bureau, DFS Secretary Shri M. Nagaraju Chairs Conference of Chairpersons of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) and Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) at New Delhi Today, Ministry of Finance, Gov’t of India (Sept. 21, 2024), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2057351
²Press Information Bureau, DFS Secretary Shri M. Nagaraju Chairs Conference of Chairpersons of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) and Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) at New Delhi Today, Ministry of Finance, Gov’t of India (Sept. 21, 2024), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2057351
³Press Information Bureau, Department of Financial Services (DFS), Ministry of Finance Organises a Colloquium of Chairpersons of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) and Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), Gov’t of India (May 16, 2025), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2130960
⁴Singh & S. B. S. Prakash eds., State of Tribunals Report (DAKSH 2025)
⁵Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 3(1)
⁶Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 3(3)
7Id
⁸Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 11
⁹Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 12
¹⁰Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 13(1)
¹¹Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 13(2)
¹²Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 13(2)
¹³Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Explanation of Regs. 13(2)
¹⁴Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 13(3)
¹⁵Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 13(4)
¹⁶Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 13(5)
¹⁷Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 13(6)
¹⁸Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 14
¹⁹Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 21
²⁰Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, Regs. 22

Procedure and Process: Key Features of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Standardising Pleadings before the DRT

III. Role of the Registrar

IV. CIIRP: Timelines and Risk of Failure

V. From Judgment to Recovery Certificate

VI. Conclusion

SHARE

RECENT ARTICLES

GSTAT’s Real Challenge Is Not Backlog – It Is Transition!

National Judicial Reforms Commission: A proposal we ignore at our peril [Part II]

National Judicial Reforms Commission: A proposal we ignore at our peril [Part I]

We’re not ready for ‘One Case One Data’. Court records are too unorganised for digitisation

Khusbu Shah