Fathima M.P v. The IDBI Bank Ltd
The Registrar of a Debts Recovery Tribunal is a ministerial officer who can only record formal defects, allow them to be cured and, if they are not, decline registration by a reasoned order; he cannot refer the application suo motu to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal cannot reject a section 17 application at the preliminary stage on questions of locus standi or maintainability that need judicial adjudication.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-14
Fathima M.P. challenged SARFAESI steps by IDBI Bank over a property and filed a securitisation application, which was tentatively numbered. The Registry placed it before the DRT to decide maintainability, and the DRT rejected it as not maintainable after examining the documents. The High Court held that neither step was permitted by the Rules and sent the application back to the Registrar.
What happened
The petitioner, aggrieved by coercive steps taken by IDBI Bank's Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI Act against an alleged secured asset, filed Ext. P1 securitisation application before DRT-I, Ernakulam, with Ext. P2 stay petition. The application was defectively and tentatively numbered as NDN(SA) No. 1308/2026, and the Registry placed it before the Tribunal to decide maintainability. By Ext. P7 order of 7 July 2026, the Tribunal, after entering into the merits and examining documents and contentions, held that the applicant had no locus standi and 'rejected' the application as not maintainable, without affording a proper opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the order was without jurisdiction, relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's Division Bench in Kanigiri Jaya Sri v. Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Kerala Division Bench in Ameena Salim v. Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam, 2024 KHC 886.
Questions before the court
- Can the Registrar refer an unnumbered application to the Tribunal on his own, and can the Tribunal reject it at that stage on locus standi?
Why the court ruled this way
Rule 5 gives the Registrar a limited procedure: if the application is in order he registers it; if defective, formal defects may be rectified in his presence and other defects within time given; and if not cured, he may by a reasoned order decline to register, subject to a chamber appeal to the Presiding Officer within 15 days (paragraph 7). He may refer an application to the Tribunal only if the party insists, and otherwise has no power other than to decline registration by a speaking order (paragraph 9). The Registrar is only a Chief Ministerial Officer without judicial powers, and raising doubts on the merits would amount to exercising a judicial mind (paragraph 10). In Ext. P7, the Tribunal had gone into the documents and found that the applicant lacked locus standi, whereas the Andhra Pradesh Division Bench in Kanigiri Jaya Sri held that there is no provision enabling the Presiding Officer to reject a section 17 application at the preliminary stage (paragraph 11). Questions such as the applicant's status, locus standi, maintainability and limitation, which involve facts and law, are not formal defects and cannot be decided in chambers; they must be adjudicated on the judicial side after hearing all parties (paragraph 13).
Controlling point
The Registrar's reference and the Tribunal's rejection of the application at the preliminary stage were both without power.
Order and next steps
The petition was allowed and Ext. P7 of 7 July 2026 in NDN(SA) No. 1308/2026 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Registrar of DRT-I, Ernakulam to consider the application strictly within Rule 5: if the defects are not complied with, to pass a speaking order declining registration, and if there are none or they are cured within the time granted, to number the application and place it before the Tribunal for consideration in accordance with law.
Practical implications
A borrower or third party whose section 17 application is rejected at the threshold on locus standi or maintainability can challenge it by writ, relying on the principles listed here; a Registrar's defect note should be answered within the time given.
Limits of this ruling
- The Court did not decide the applicant's locus standi or the merits of the SARFAESI action; those are for the Tribunal after the application is registered.
Law and judgment source
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, section 17
- Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, rule 5
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-14 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1–14 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.