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 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 the DRT, Jaipur, which is the only functional DRT within the jurisdiction of the DRAT, Delhi. This Court also disposed of petitions under Article 226 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.

13. As the physical possession of the property is intended to be taken on 18.11.2021, Mr. Gaurav Bahl, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks some interim protection. He submits that the petitioners failed to pay two EMIs of approximately ₹1.76 Lakhs each. Mr. Rishabh Sahu, learned counsel for HDFC, on the other hand, submits that the principal amount due under the loan is approximately ₹1.49 Crores and the overdue amount today stands at approximately ₹13 Lakhs until October, 2021.