Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On 22.10.2021, the Bank issued a notice for auction of the property scheduled on 12.11.2021. The petitioners have filed two Interlocutory Applications before the DRT-I, Delhi in respect of the said auction sale under Diary Nos. 4092/2021 and 4093/2021 dated 04.11.2021. The applications have not been heard as the DRTs in Delhi are, at present, not functioning for want of Presiding Officers. In these circumstances, the petitioners have also filed the application under Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act read with Section 17A(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ["RDB Act"] before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ["DRAT"] for transfer of the Securitisation Application to a functional DRT. Unfortunately, as the learned Chairperson of the DRAT, Delhi has also demitted office on 30.10.2021, in terms of a notification dated 29.10.2021, issued by the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the transfer application has also remained unheard.

4. In these circumstances, the petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction transferring the proceedings in the Securitisation Application to the DRT, Jaipur, which is the only functional DRT under the jurisdiction of the DRAT, Delhi.

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 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 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.

7. This Court has since passed orders in several cases, transferring proceedings to a functional DRT, e.g., by order dated 10.11.2021 in W.P.(C) 12610/2021 [M/s Tulip Data Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr.] and by order dated 15.11.2021 in W.P.(C) 12811/2021 [Greatway Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Yes Bank Ltd. & Anr.]. I am of the view that this approach is also consistent with the judgments of the Supreme Court which make it clear, particularly in the context of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, that the writ jurisdiction should rarely be exercised.