[PER B.P.COLABAWALLA J. ] :-

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is laid to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, the “DRAT”) dated 8th October, 2013 whereby the DRAT upheld the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal – III, Mumbai (for short the “DRT – III, Mumbai”) dated 14th August 2011. The DRT – III Mumbai, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Securitization Application filed by the Petitioner and ordered the return of the Securitization Application to the Petitioner so that the same could be filed in the competent DRT. In a nutshell, both the authorities below held that DRT – III, Mumbai would have no jurisdiction to entertain the Securitisation Application as the secured property was situated in the State of Gujarat and therefore the Securitization Application could be filed only within the jurisdiction of the DRT where the secured property was situated. To come to this conclusion, the DRT as well as the DRAT have both relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of the