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. The S.A. was directed to be called on 26.12.2013. S.A. No.759 of 2013 underwent 23 adjournments thereafter till 29.03.2014, mostly with the endorsement no time-reposted or orders are not ready. Thereafter, on 09.10.2014, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, and status quo was directed to be continued. On its being returned by the Lok Adalat on 20.11.2014, S.A. No.759 of 2013 again suffered several adjournments. We are now informed that the Presiding Officer of the DRT retired on 30.04.2015 without pronouncing orders on the question of its jurisdiction to entertain S.A. No.759 of 2013. The order, under challenge in W.P.No.10281 of 2015, was passed by the DRT, Hyderabad in S.A.No.760 of 2013 dated 16.12.2013. Identical orders, as were passed in S.A.No.759 of 2013, were passed in S.A. No.760 of 2013 also. Like S.A.No.759 of 2013, S.A. No.760 of 2013 also suffered repeated adjournments.

The order, under challenge in W.P.No.6350 of 2015, was passed by the DRT in SAIR No.442 of 2014 dated 18.07.2014. In the said order, the DRT observed that when SAIR No.442 of 2014 was taken up, since the maintainability on the question of territorial jurisdiction was under consideration, the matter was posted to 18.07.2014; the learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner in the Writ Petitions) had filed a petition to reopen the SAIR for hearing them even with regards maintainability; and hence orders could not be passed. The DRT further observed that however, considering the fact that the schedule property was being subjected to public auction on 21.07.2014 pursuant to the sale notice dated 08.06.2014, as the maintainability of the SAIR has not yet been decided and it was reposted to 23.07.2014 on the appearance of the respondent, it was felt not justified and reasonable to allow the respondent to proceed with the sale of schedule property in the meanwhile. The DRT directed that the auction be postponed till 23.07.2014. On 23.07.2014 the matter was adjourned to 28.07.2014 and status quo was extended till then. Thereafter, the matter suffered several adjournments till 08.09.2014 either on the ground that orders were not ready or that there was no time. On 09.10.2014 the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Thereafter, on the S.A. being returned by the Lok Adalat, the matter again underwent several adjournments. We are informed by Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, Learned Counsel for the respondent-applicant, that the matter was reopened on 16.04.2015, on the eve of the retirement of the Presiding Officer of the DRT on 30.04.2015, and SAIR is still pending before the DRT with regards maintainability on the question of its territorial jurisdiction.

Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the Delhi High Court, sanctioned a scheme of arrangement between Indiabulls Financial Servi