Home  /  Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993  /  Section 7

Section 7: Staff of Tribunal

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1993
Section 6 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 8

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 7

Section 7 mandates the provision of administrative and executive staff for the Tribunal by the Central Government, specifically creating the independent statutory office of the Recovery Officer.

  • Statutory Provision of Tribunal Staff: Sub-section (1) commands the Central Government to provide the Tribunal with one or more Recovery Officers and such other officers and employees (including Registrars and court masters) as it may think fit.
  • Independent Statutory Execution Mandate: The Recovery Officer is not a mere ministerial clerk but an independent statutory executing authority appointed under Section 7(1) to execute recovery certificates issued by the Presiding Officer under Section 19(22).
  • Administrative Superintendence: Sub-section (2) provides that the Recovery Officers and other officers and employees of a Tribunal shall discharge their functions under the general superintendence and control of the Presiding Officer.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank (2000) 4 SCC 406: The Supreme Court held that the Recovery Officer appointed under Section 7 possesses exclusive statutory jurisdiction to execute recovery certificates under Chapter V of the Act, which cannot be stultified, stayed, or supervised by a company court under Section 446 or 537 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  • Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi (2013) 15 SCC 341: The Supreme Court held that the Recovery Officer operates within a distinct statutory sphere under the general superintendence of the Presiding Officer, but must execute the certificate strictly as issued without reopening underlying findings on debt liability.
  • Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P. Ltd. v. Haryana Concast Ltd. (2016) 4 SCC 47: The Supreme Court ruled that the machinery of the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act represents an exhaustive, self-contained execution regime operating independently of conventional civil court execution processes.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Maintain a clear distinction between the Presiding Officer (adjudicatory forum under Section 19) and the Recovery Officer (executing forum under Chapter V). Once a Recovery Certificate (RC) is issued, all execution applications for attachment, warrant of arrest, and auction sale must be addressed to the Recovery Officer appointed under Section 7, not to the Presiding Officer, subject only to appeal under Section 30.

Section 6 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 8