Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. Srinivasan states that the property has already been sold by the Bank in an auction in March, 2021 and the only step remaining is for the physical possession of the property to be taken by the Bank, and handed over to the auction purchaser.

5. Be that as it may, the petitioner has invoked her statutory remedies under Section 17 of the Act but her application has not yet been heard for the reasons beyond her control. In these circumstances, where the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ["DRAT"] and DRTs in Delhi are at present non-functional, this Court has considered several petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although some petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were entertained, it was thereafter brought to the notice of the Court that the 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.

12. 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. Mr. Jain and Mr. Prabodh Gupta both state that they have no objection to the transfer of their Securitisation Application to DRT, Jaipur in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.