DRT Has No Jurisdiction to Entertain Miscellaneous Application after Case Disposal: DRAT Quashes CIBIL Direction Against SBI [Read Order]
The Tribunal noted that the order of withdrawal was passed in the presence of the respondents' counsel, and if they were aggrieved, they should have pursued other legal remedies.
![DRT Has No Jurisdiction to Entertain Miscellaneous Application after Case Disposal: DRAT Quashes CIBIL Direction Against SBI [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/11/14/2105151-drat-sbi-taxscan.webp "DRT Has No Jurisdiction to Entertain Miscellaneous Application after Case Disposal: DRAT Quashes CIBIL Direction Against SBI [Read Order]")
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata, has allowed an appeal filed by State Bank of India (SBI) by setting aside a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order that had directed the bank to update the respondents' credit information with CIBIL. The tribunal quashed the direction to the bank regarding the CIBIL update. The dispute originated from an original application...
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata, has allowed an appeal filed by State Bank of India (SBI) by setting aside a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order that had directed the bank to update the respondents' credit information with CIBIL. The tribunal quashed the direction to the bank regarding the CIBIL update.
The dispute originated from an original application (O.A.) filed by SBI for the recovery of a loan, for which the respondents were guarantors. The loan was subsequently settled under the One Time Settlement scheme (OTS), and the bank issued a 'No Dues Certificate' and withdrew the O.A.
Following this, the respondents filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) in the withdrawn proceedings, seeking a direction to the bank to remove their names from the CIBIL records, as they were no longer liable.
Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here
The core issue before the DRAT was the maintainability of the M.A. filed by the respondents after the O.A. had already been disposed of as withdrawn.
A single bench of Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson of the Tribunal, observed that the DRT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the M.A. in proceedings that were already disposed of.
The Tribunal noted that the order of withdrawal was passed in the presence of the respondents' counsel, and if they were aggrieved, they should have pursued other legal remedies.
It was held that Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act does not empower a party to file an application to reopen a concluded case.
Consequently, the DRAT allowed SBI's appeal and set aside the impugned DRT order. The Tribunal held that the M.A. was not maintainable and quashed the direction to the bank regarding the CIBIL update. The file was ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
