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. 200