Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. 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 knowledge 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 the 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.

11. I am of the view that the transfer of the proceedings 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.

12. Mr. Raghav Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the physical possession of the properties are to be taken on 12.11.2021. He, therefore, seeks some interim protection. Mr. R.K. Sinha, learned counsel for Bank, submits that the total outstanding in respect of the credit facilities taken by the petitioner is to the tune of approximately ₹ 42 lakhs. I find that the petitioner has relied upon a message sent by the bank on 10.09.2021 by which she was asked to deposit a sum of ₹3 lakhs as committed by her. Although Mr. Kapoor submits that certain amounts have been deposited even after the aforesaid communication, it is not disputed that the entire amount of ₹ 3 lakhs was not so deposited.