SPECIALIZED JUSTICE: THE ROLE OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNALS AND MULTI-REGIME COORDINATION IN INDIA’S CREDIT RECOVERY FRAMEWORK

AUTHOR – ARJUN AGNIHOTRI, STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – ARJUN AGNIHOTRI, SPECIALIZED JUSTICE: THE ROLE OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNALS AND MULTI-REGIME COORDINATION IN INDIA’S CREDIT RECOVERY FRAMEWORK, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 471-480, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I847

Abstract

The debt recovery legal system in India has experienced major changes during the last 30 years. The system now uses multiple financial default resolution methods to handle debt recovery cases which require more complex solutions than civil courts could provide. The paper analyzes the system architecture through three legal mechanisms which operate together with the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) established by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act of 1993 and the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016. The paper traces the origins and rationale of the DRT system, analysing how dedicated tribunals for banking disputes emerged because specialised financial courts resolved cases more quickly and accurately than traditional courts.

The DRT model establishes its jurisdictional framework while defining its operational processes. The DRT model creates its jurisdictional framework which establishes its operational processes but its performance was affected by institutional problems which included bench vacancies and infrastructural deficiencies and appellate delays. The paper examines how the three regimes function together with their operational relationships during actual recovery processes. The DRTs enable judicial review of secured interests which SARFAESI directly enforces and the IBC provides a unified process which handles all insolvency cases.

The distinct purposes of each regime create operational difficulties through their shared jurisdictional areas because creditors and borrowers face challenges which include choosing their court and deciding between different methods of obtaining solutions. The institutional framework needs enhancements while active inter-regime coordination should be implemented to achieve the complete operational potential of India’s debt recovery system. Legal innovation needs digital modernization together with consistent tribunal staffing and appellate streamlining to create recovery results which provide equitable outcomes for all parties.