Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. However, as the DRTs in Delhi are at present without Presiding Officers, the applications have not been taken up for hearing. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. As all the three DRTs in Delhi are without Presiding Officers, several petitions have been filed in this Court seeking similar reliefs. Although some petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were entertained, it was thereafter brought to the notice of the Court that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ["DRAT"] is empowered to transfer the applications/petitions to another functional DRT within the jurisdiction of the DRAT on the ground of urgency, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act read with Section 17A(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ["RDB Act"]. Several orders were passed by the DRAT, Delhi transferring proceedings from the DRTs in Delhi to DRT, Jaipur, which is the only functional DRT within the jurisdiction of the DRAT, Delhi. This Court also disposed of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution with liberty to the petitioners to approach the DRAT, Delhi for such relief.

13. I am of the view that the transfer of proceedings in the present case also to a functional DRT would be consistent with this approach of the Supreme Court, rather than entertaining the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

14. Mr. Singh, however, submits that no urgent orders are required in the present case. He states that the property has already been sold on 25.11.2021, and further submits that the grounds raised by the petitioners have already been adjudicated by the DRT in the earlier round of litigation.