The Kerala High Court held that a Debts Recovery Tribunal Registrar cannot on his own place an unregistered SARFAESI application before the judge to decide whether the applicant has a right to file it. It set aside a DRT Ernakulam order that had rejected a borrower's case this way and sent it back for a proper hearing, so an early rejection made at the registry step now needs a fresh look.
What this changes for a title check
This tightens what a title checker or bank legal team can rely on from a DRT registry-stage rejection. Under Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the Registrar's job is limited to checking an application for defects and refusing registration by a reasoned order if they are not cured; questions of locus standi, maintainability or limitation must go to the Presiding Officer after both sides are heard. A dismissal that shows up as coming from the Registry rather than a judicial order is now open to challenge, so a search that found a SARFAESI application rejected at the registry stage cannot treat that as final; it has to check whether the file was actually decided by the tribunal or only screened by the Registrar.