Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

The order, under challenge in W.P.No.10278 of 2015, was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (DRT for short) in S.A.No.759 of 2013 dated 16.12.2013. In the said order, the DRT noted the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner herein that, since the schedule property was situated in the State of Chattisgarh, the DRT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the securitization application. It also took note of the contentions urged on behalf of the respondent-company that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter since the cause of action took place within its jurisdiction. The DRT, thereafter, observed that the crucial issue, raised by both sides, was with regards its jurisdiction over the subject matter; however, arguments in the present matter, were heard at late hours; in view of paucity of time, a detailed order could not be passed in the present petition; considering the fact that auction of the schedule property was fixed on 17.12.2013, the petitioner could receive the bids from the intending purchasers of the schedule property on 17.12.2013, but should not open the same till 26.12.2013, on which day detailed orders would be passed.