Home  /  Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993  /  Section 8

Section 8: Establishment of Appellate Tribunal

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

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1993
Section 7 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 9

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 8

Section 8 empowers the Central Government to establish Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) by notification, creating the exclusive statutory appellate tier across designated territorial jurisdictions.

  • Executive Power of Establishment: Section 8(1) authorizes the Central Government to establish, by official notification, one or more Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals to exercise appellate jurisdiction under the Act.
  • Appellate Zonal Demarcation: Sub-section (2) mandates that the Central Government specify in the notification the local limits of jurisdiction and the specific Debts Recovery Tribunals over which each Appellate Tribunal shall exercise appellate authority.
  • Institutional Hierarchy: DRATs function as the sole intermediate appellate forum between the DRT and the High Court/Supreme Court, hearing appeals arising under both Section 20 of the RDB Act and Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110: The Supreme Court held that DRAT established under Section 8 is a specialized, efficacious appellate forum. High Courts must refrain from entertaining Article 226 writ petitions when an alternative statutory appeal lies before the DRAT against a DRT order.
  • Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association (2002) 4 SCC 275: The Supreme Court held that the establishment of DRATs ensures an effective check on the exercise of summary powers by DRTs, providing a specialized judicial appellate structure that satisfies constitutional norms of fairness.
  • Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85: The Supreme Court reaffirmed Satyawati Tondon, holding that writ petitions bypassing the appellate machinery of the DRAT under Section 8 are impermissible save in exceptional cases of absolute lack of jurisdiction.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Always verify which DRAT possesses appellate jurisdiction over the originating DRT by consulting the relevant Section 8(2) territorial notification (e.g., DRAT Delhi over Delhi, Chandigarh, and Jaipur DRTs; DRAT Mumbai over Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Goa). In invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 against a DRT order, explicitly plead why the appellate remedy before DRAT under Section 8 is unavailable or rendered completely inefficacious due to tribunal vacancy or demonstrable coram non judice.

Section 7 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 9