Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 7818 of 2023, the Petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 14 February 2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 and subsequent notice dated 2 March 2023, the Petitioner had filed the securitization application before the DRT-II, Mumbai. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner sought interim order on the ground of directions issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). However, there was confusion as regards the transfer of papers arising out of the change in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The grievance of the Petitioner was that the DRT was not sitting on 20 March 2023 to 24 March 2023 without making an alternate arrangement.

5. We requested Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General, to assist the Court in looking into the issue. The learned ASG informed us that both Registrars of DRT Mumbai and DRT Pune are present in the Court. He confirmed that the Members of the Mumbai DRT and Pune DRT were on leave to attend a seminar, but also informed us that one DRT was functioning in Mumbai. The learned ASG also acknowledged that the notice issued did not inform the parties of any alternate arrangement. He further stated that general instructions were issued on 18 April 2022 regarding alternate arrangements in case of the unavailability of the Presiding Officer. However, the learned Counsel in Writ Petition (L) No. 8056 of 2023 pointed out that this arrangement would not work for DRT Pune as there is only one member. In response, the learned ASG informed us that the Registrar of DRAT Mumbai has 5 901-904. WP 3697-7818.23 - 21.03.doc issued a notice today stating that the charge of DRT-II Mumbai, DRT-III Mumbai, DRT-Pune, DRT-Aurangabad, DRT-Nagpur, DRT-I Ahmedabad, and DRT-II Ahmedabad is entrusted to DRT-I Mumbai.

6. We take note that the notice regarding the charge of all the mentioned Debts Recovery Tribunals being entrusted to DRT-I, Mumbai, was issued only after we had raised the issue in WP 3697/23 yesterday. We find it concerning that all the officers of the mentioned DRTs have proceeded on leave simultaneously to attend the Seminar, leaving litigants seeking urgent relief with no other option but to approach the High Court, despite the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon1. The learned ASG assures us that the appropriate authorities will be informed and sensitized to ensure that such a situation does not recur. However, this is not an isolated instance, and earlier also, petitions were filed before us due to the unavailability of DRT Members without any alternate arrangement. In such cases, we suggest that the notice should provide an alternate arrangement, and the DRT Registry could explore the possibility of making an alternate forum available through Video Conferencing.