JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for the petitioners and learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondent No. 1. Though served no one appears for respondent No. 2 – Mr. Divyen Vasantrai Raithatha.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in narrow compass and with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Rule returnable forwith. Learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 – Bank. As the respondent No. 2 has chosen not to appear before the Court pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, there is no need to issue Rule to the said respondent.

4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.05.2021 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘DRAT’) in Appeal No. 74 of 2019 as well as the order dated 08.05.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal – II, Ahmedabad (for short ‘DRT’) in Securitisation Application No. 226 of 2018.

4.1 The petitioners have filed Securitisation Application No. 226 of 20