Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of Bombay high court expressed serious concern over the functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, observing that repeated complaints about the conduct of its presiding officer have surfaced in several cases over the past few months.A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions that raised grievances about delays in adjudication before the tribunal, particularly in matters involving urgent relief.According to the court, several petitions placed before it highlighted a common concern that applications and proceedings pending before the tribunal, including urgent pleas seeking a stay on auction proceedings or possession actions, were not decided before coercive steps were initiated against borrowers.The judges noted that such allegations, if accurate, reflected conduct that appeared “unbecoming of a judicial officer” and required immediate attention. The bench also recorded its concern over the tribunal’s failure to comply with earlier directions issued by the high court to decide certain proceedings within a stipulated time frame.During the hearing, the court examined the explanation offered by the tribunal’s presiding officer for the delay in complying with the high court’s order. According to the bench, the explanation “shocked” the court.The officer stated that because writ petitions relating to the matter were pending before the high court, the tribunal did not comply with the directions requiring disposal of the proceedings within the prescribed period.The judges observed that such reasoning could not justify non-compliance with a judicial order. The bench further noted that a contempt notice was earlier issued to the presiding officer. However, it recorded that the court was still attempting to avoid taking stringent action “to maintain the dignity of the tribunal.”During the proceedings, the court requested Kartik Shukul, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), to communicate the court’s concerns to the appropriate authorities in the Union govt.Shukul informed the bench that he wrote a detailed letter dated March 2, 2026, to the joint secretary of the department of financial services in the central govt, highlighting the issue and the concerns raised by the high court.Taking note of the submission, the bench directed the DSGI to place the correspondence on record by the next hearing.The matter arises from a batch of petitions, including one filed by Gajanan Burghate and another against the Debt Recovery Tribunal through its presiding officer. The proceedings also include connected writ petitions filed by Arvind Chikar and Rajan Bokde.The petitioners raised grievances over delays in the tribunal’s proceedings, including the pendency of an interlocutory application seeking production of original loan and mortgage documents. According to the petitioners, their applications remained pending for several months without a decision.The high court posted the matter for further hearing and is expected to examine the issue after the Union govt places the relevant communication on record.
