Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The petitions impugn the order dated 6th June, 2014 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi of transferring S.A. No.87/2013 filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4413/2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur and S.A. No.174/2013 filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5581/2014 before the DRT Chandigarh to DRT-II, Delhi, on an application of the respondent no.10 in both petitions (M/s Harish Chandra (India) Ltd. (HCIL)) and in exercise of powers under Section 17A of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act).

2. W.P.(C) No.4413/2014 came up first before this Court on 22nd July, 2014 when, on the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Full Bench of this Court in Amish Jain Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. AIR 2013 Delhi 172 has held that there is no provision in the DRT Act for transfer of proceedings from one DRT to another, notice thereof was issued for 26th August, 2014 and final determination/adjudication by the DRT-II, Delhi stayed.

3. W.P.(C) No.5581/2014 came up first for consideration on 29th August, 2014. However, since the senior counsel for the contesting respondent appeared, we, with the consent of the counsels, heard both the petitions finally and reserved judgment.

4. The facts not in dispute are as under:-

(i) The consortium of respondents no. 1 to 7 Banks, sometime in January/February, 2013, issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in relation to the debt owed by the respondent no. 10 HCIL and others and in July, 2013 took symbolic possession of various secured assets including the secured assets at Jaipur and Chandigarh. Aggrieved therefrom, the respondent no.10 HCIL instituted a Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act being SA No. 80 of 2013 before the DRT-I, Delhi;

(ii) Some other persons claiming interest in the same secured assets also filed other SAs under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before DRT Jaipur, DRT Chandigarh and also before the DRT-I and DRT-III, Delhi;

(iii) The respondent nos. 1 to 6 Banks filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the DRT Act, being OA No. 8 of 2014, before the DRT-II, Delhi for recovery of the said debt owed by the respondent no. 10 HCIL and others;

(iv) The respondent no. 10 HCIL filed an application under Section 17A of the DRT Act before the DRAT, Delhi for transfer of OA No. 8 of 2014 filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 6 Banks before the DRT-II, Delhi to the DRT-I, Delhi where the SA filed by it was pending;

(v) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4413/2014 had also filed a Securitisation Application being SA No. 87 of 2013 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT Jaipur with respect to one of the secured assets aforesaid situated at Jaipur, claiming a right/interest therein;

(vi) Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5581/2014 had filed a Securitisation Application being SA No. 174 of 2013 before the DRT Chandigarh with respect to one of the secured assets aforesaid situated at Chandigarh contending that though it had created security of its asset to guarantee the repayment of the debt by the respondent no. 10 HCIL but the said guarantee was conditional and its asset/property was not liable to be taken over by the respondent Banks;

(vii) During the hearing of the Transfer Application filed by the respondent no.10 HCIL before the DRAT, it was also contended that all SAs also, pending before different DRTs should be tried by one and the same DRT, so as to avoid the possibility of conflicting orders;

(viii) The counsels for both the petitioners objected, contending that since the assets/properties with respect to which they had filed the SAs were located in Jaipur and Chandigarh respectively and where they were/are also situated, it will be difficult for them to contest the litigation at Delhi.

5. The DRAT did not find any merit in