A similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court in Satnam Agri Products (supra), which goes on to hold
that there is no reason to exempt the appeals arising out of the orders passed
by the DRT on interlocutory applications merely on the ground that the said
orders do not have the effect of staying the action or measures taken by the
secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act
for enforcement of security interest.
2. When a question was posed by the Court, particularly with reference to the
above and the remaining prayers, as to why the Petitioner could first not approach
the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT'), Mr. Aalok Jagga, learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the
DRT-II, Chandigarh in SA No.870 of 2017 (M/s Maxx Metal Pvt. Ltd. Company
and others v. Indian Overseas Bank), wherein the DRT has purportedly, based
upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Satnam Agri Products Ltd. v.
Union of India 2014 (79) RCR (Civil) 661, formed an opinion that the DRT does
not have enough power to issue any direction to the bank to consider
rehabilitation/resettlement proposals.