Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—M/s. Dynamic Education Systems (International) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’) having its registered office at Indore in Madhya Pradesh and its Director who resides in Indore have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 24th April, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad by which the three Appeals filed under Section 20 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1993 Act’) for setting aside the order dated 29th July, 2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur, have been dismissed. The three Appeals were filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur under Section 30 of the 1993 Act to assail the orders passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur in Original Application/Execution Case No. 84 of 2005. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur as also the orders passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur.

2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that the petitioner-Company having its registered office at Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh was granted a loan of Rs. 1.60 Crores by the Bank of Baroda having its Branch office at Indore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’) and for this purpose the property belonging to the Company situated in Indore was mortgaged in favour of the Bank. The petitioner-Company committed default in the payment of the loan amount and the Bank filed Original Application No. 114 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur under Section 19 of the 1993 Act. The Debts Recovery Appellate at Jabalpur issued the recovery certificate on 19th October, 2005. The mortgaged property of the Company was auctioned on 14th December, 2006 and sale was made in favour of respondent No. 4-M/s. Dodeja Builders Pvt. Ltd., Indore. It is against the orders passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur, that the petitioner-Company filed three Appeals before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur under Section 30 of the 1993 Act. These appeals were dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur on 29th July, 2011 against which three Appeals were filed by the Company before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad under Section 20 of the 1993 Act. These appeals have been dismissed by the common order dated 24th April, 2012.

3. The orders passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur, the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur and the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad have been assailed in this petition.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser and Sri Manish Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank that since the petitioner-Company has its registered office at Indore, the respondent-Bank which gave the loan is in Indore and the auction purchaser is also in Indore, this Court should refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of 'forum conveniens’ and in support of this contention, they have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769 and the Full Bench of five Judges of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2011 DELHI 174.

5. Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, submitted that as the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad is also under challenge in this petition, part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, this Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In support of his contention, he has placed rel