Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 · Chapter III: Enforcement of Security Interest
Section 17: Application against measures to recover secured debts
17. [Application against measures to recover secured debts].— (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within fortyfive days from the date on which such measure had been taken:
[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.]
[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section.]
[(1A) An application under sub-section (1) shall be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—
(a) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises;
(b) where the secured asset is located; or
(c) the branch or any other office of a bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being.]
[(2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
[(3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management or restoration of possession, of the secured assets to the borrower or other aggrieved person, it may, by order,—
(a) declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor as invalid; and
(b) restore the possession of secured assets or management of secured assets to the borrower or such other aggrieved person, who has made an application under sub-section (1), as the case may be; and
(c) pass such other direction as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13.]
(4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of section 13 to recover his secured debt.
[(4A) Where—
(i) any person, in an application under sub-section (1), claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts of the case and evidence produced by the parties in relation to such claims shall, for the purposes of enforcement of security interest, have the jurisdiction to examine whether lease or tenancy,—
(a) has expired or stood determined; or
(b) is contrary to section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or
(c) is contrary to terms of mortgage; or
(d) is created after the issuance of notice of default and demand by the Bank under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act; and
(ii) the Debt Recovery Tribunal is satisfied that tenancy right or leasehold rights claimed in secured asset falls under the sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (i), then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may pass such order as it deems fit in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]
(5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application:
Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1).
(6) If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any part to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such application, make an order for expeditious disposal of the pending application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and the rules made thereunder.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 14 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 17
-
Assistant General Manager State Bank of India & Anr. v. Tanya Energy Enterprises
(i) Whether the High Court erred in its interference with the order of rejection of the respondent’s application under the One Time Settlement 2020 Scheme and directing reconsideration thereof; (ii) Whether, a court can…
-
Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution & Anr v. The Board of Directors of Nkgsb Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Lending banks/secured creditors, if under an obligation, in terms of the notification dated 29.05.2015 containing the “Framework For Revival And Rehabilitation Of Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises” (Framework), to…
-
Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant u/Or.VII, r.11, CPC, 1908.
-
Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors.
Whether the jurisdiction of civil court to try a suit is completely barred by s.34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
-
Celir LLP v. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna & Ors.
The present petitions sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/alleged contemnors for wilful disobedience of the final judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.…
- Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited & Ors v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr
- Mr. Mohamad Imran v. Union of India & Ors
- Japneet Kaur Ghuman & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
- Karan Ahuja v. Union of India & Anr
- Jajati Keshri Pattanayak & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
- Sanjay Dhingra v. 1. Idbi Bank Limited & Ors
- Ms Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Sh Mahesh Taneja and Ors
- O.P.Sharma v. Punjab National Bank & Anr
- Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. M/S Anoop Oswal Hosiery and Ors
- Zahid Hussain v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd
-
Govind Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Whether an auction/ sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act) carried out without issuing the mandatory 30-day notice to the…
- Zahid Hussain v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd
- Magnum Steels Ltd & Ors v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr
-
PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others
Matter pertains to the High Courts entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy.
- Fareed Farooqi & Ors v. Union Bank of India
- Lalit Polyplast Private Limited & Anr v. Bank of Baroda & Ors
- Ifci Venture Capital Funds Limited v. Srgp Corporation Limited
-
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The matter pertains to the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme which introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties; as also the constitutional validity of the provisions of the…
- M/S Subhash Chand Kathuria v. Punjab National Bank
-
The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu
(i)Whether, the underlying principle of Section(s) 73 & 74 respectively of the Contract Act, 1872 Act is applicable to forfeiture of earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. In other words, whether…
- Keshav Datt v. South Asian University
- Dr. Snehashish Bhattacharya & Ors v. South Asian University
- Ashish Abrol & Anr v. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited & Anr
- Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd v. Rishi Pal Sharma & Ors
- H. R. Sharma v. Delhi and District Cricket Association & Ors
- Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd v. Kaushalya Devi & Ors
- Idfc First Bank Limited v. Union of India and Ors
- Celir Llp v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt.
- Punjab National Bank & Anr v. Harmeet Kaur Dhingra & Ors
- M/S Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. Religare Finvest Limited Through Its Authorized Officer
- Girish Bansal & Ors v. Yashpal Singla & Ors
- Vanya Jain v. Ambit Finvest Pvt Ltd and Ors
- Vineet Saraf v. Rec Ltd
- Vikash Mathur v. Kotak Mahindra Bank and Anr
- G. Vikram Kumar v. State Bank of Hyderabad &
- Seema Sahni v. The Punjab National Bank and Ors
- M/S South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naveen
- Authorised Officer State Bank of India v. C. Natarajan & Anr
- Ashima Goyal v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr
- Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr v. Registrar of Trademarks & Ors
- Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr v. Shipra Leasing Pvt. Ltd
- Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr v. Shipra Hotels Ltd
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators
- Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Prudent Arc Ltd. & Others
- Mr.Dhanesh Gupta and Ors v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr
- Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu & Ors.
- Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr Lrs & Anr v. Phoenix Arc Private Limited & Ors
- Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr v. Shipra Leasing Ltd
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Narendra Jayantilal Trivedi & Anr.
- Bank of Baroda v. M/S Karwa Trading Company & Anr.
- Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors.
- Arce Polymers Private Limited v. M/S. Alphine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Others
- Electrosteel Castings Limited v. Uv Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors.
- S. Karthik & Ors. v. N. Subhash Chand Jain & Ors.
- Hemraj Ratnakar Salian v. Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Ors.
- Suman Chadha & Anr. v. Central Bank of India
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)
- Manish Kumar v. Union of India and Another
- Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited
- M/S. Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited v. State Bank of India & Ors.
- K. Virupaksha & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
- Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Anr.
- M/S Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Through District Magistrate Ghaziabad & Anr.
- Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. M/S. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited and Others
- Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K. C.
- Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
- Maharaji Educational Trust v. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
- Axis Bank v. Sbs Organics Private Limited and Another
- M/S Madras Petrochem Ltd. & Anr v. Bifr& Ors.
- Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India & Ors.
- Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P. Ltd. v. M/S. Haryanaconcast Limited &Anr.
- Rajbala & Others v. State of Haryana & Others
- Excel Dealcomm Private Limited v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & Ors.
- Mrs. Priyankasrivastavaandanother v. State of U.P.And Others
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Centeral Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- Vasu P. Shetty v. M/S Hotel Vandana Palace & Ors.
- Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.
- Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi and Others
- Gm, Sri Siddeshwara Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Sri Ikbal & Ors.
- M/S. Optiemus Infracom Ltd. Etc. v. M/S. Ishan Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- Smt. Har Devi Asnani v. State of Rajasthan & Others
- United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others
- Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Anr. v. M/S. Ashok Saw Mill
- M/S Transcore v. Union of India and Anr.