The main legal point established in the judgment is that the territorial jurisdiction and cause of action are crucial factors in determining the maintainability of a Writ Petition, especially in cases involving multiple tribunals situated in different states.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether the Writ Petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which is situate within the territorial limits of this Court, while the original Tribunal is situate in another State is maintainable and whether the decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Bank , 2005 (5) CTC 721: 2006 (2) BC 191 DB, is correct.

2. The facts need not be set out in detail. But briefly the background of the case is this:

The respondents issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(‘SARFAESI Act’ in short) read with Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 30.8.2004. This was followed by a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The proceedings were challenged by the petitioners under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore. But the pe titioner failed. They filed an Appeal under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. This was also dismissed on 212. 2006. Against this order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Writ was not maintainable in this Court since the entire cause of action arose in Bangalore. Both the parties are in Bangalore. The notices under the SARFAESI Act were issued in Bangalore and in these circumstances, the Writ Petition should be filed before the Karnataka High Court and not the Madras High Court. The counsel for respondents placed their reliance on Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Bank , 2005 (5) CTC 721: 2006 (2) BC 191 (DB). The following paragraphs in the above said decision are relevant.

“20. Thus, it is clear that the location of the Appellate Tribunal may vary from time-to-time according to its convenience. In the present case, as indicated above, the Appellate Tribunal is, in the eye of law, located at Hyderabad, though, for convenience, it holds office at Chennai, as the same Presiding officer has been discharging the same function for other States.

21. Admittedly, this Madras High Court has no power of jurisdiction or superintendence, either administrative or judicial, over the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad. Merely because the Appellate Tribunal is situtated within the territorial limits of this High Court, such a fact cannot confer jurisdiction to scrutinise the order passed by such Tribunal in any Appeal preferred against the decision of the original Tribunal, over which this Court has no power of superintendence.

22. By virtue of Article 226(1) of the Constitution, this High Court shall have power to issue appropriate orders to all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories of this State, in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, and can call for the returns from such Tribunals and may also make order, issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such Courts and Tribunals. If a Tribunal is constituted as Appellate Tribunal for hearing Appeals against decisions of more than one original Tribunal situated in different States, in our view, in such a case, for the purpose of challenging the orders of such Appellate Tribunals by way of an Application under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, the aggrieved party is to approach the High Court of that State within the territorial limit of which the original Tribunal exercises jurisdiction in a particular case.

23. While entertaining the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court must ascertain as to what is the effect of interference prayed for in the Writ Petitions. If the result of such intervention is that an order of a Tribunal, over which this High Court has no power of superintendence, has to be subjected to scrutiny, then, in that case, this High C