Hon’ble Dilip B. Bhosale, C.J.—The order of Reference dated 19 September 2017, which has occasioned the constitution of a larger Bench, has been passed by learned Single Judge, after having noticed the divergent opinions expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in Sushila Steels v. Union Bank of India and others, 2014(5) ADJ 678 (DB) and Aum Jewels and others v. Vijaya Bank (Writ-C No. 13476 of 2017, decided on 30.3.2017) on the question whether an application under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical (actual) possession of the secured assets is taken by the Bank/FIs in exercise of its powers under Section 13(4) thereof read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short “the Rules”)

2. By means of this petition (No. 20026 of 2017) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (M/s N.C.M.L. Industries Ltd. and another) called in question the validity of an order dated 2.8.2017, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, (for short “DRAT