J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, (Constitution), invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, seeking directions for the expeditious adjudication and, preferably, after consolidation, of two Interim Applications, (IAs) out of common transactions and disputes, which are (i) I.A. No. 635/2024 in T.A. No. 406/2022 (O.A. No. 136/2016), titled Punjab National Bank vs. M/s KMG A to Z Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi, (DRT-III); and (ii) I.A. No. 3340/2024 in T.A. No. 2097/2023 (O.A. No. 29/2017), titled Canara Bank vs. M/s KMG A to Z Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, (DRT-II). In both IAs, the Petitioner has sought discharge from his personal guarantee and release of his mortgaged immovable property.

2. The Petitioner further seeks a stay of the personal insolvency proceedings initiated against him under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (IBC), bearing (IB) No. 58/ND/2025, titled Canara Bank vs. Sanjeev Krishan Sharma, pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, Court-VI, New Delhi, (NCLT). The Petitioner contends that the said proceedings arise from the same debt and transaction and that allowing them to continue simultaneously, before the Debts Recovery Tribunals, (DRTs) and NCLT, would result in multiplicity of proceedings and the possibility of conflicting adjudications.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The relevant facts, as borne out from the pleadings and the documents placed on record, are set out hereunder:

(a) The Petitioner is the erstwhile (suspended) Director of M/s KMG A to Z Systems Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company incorporated in 1999 under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company had availed of certain credit facilities from a consortium of banks led by Respondent No. 1, with Respondent No. 2 being a participant lender. In connection with the said facilities, the Petitioner, along with others, executed a personal guarantee and further mortgaged his immovable property bearing Business Suite No. 508, 5th Floor, The Peach Tree Complex, Block-C, Sushant Lok, Phase I, Gurugram, Haryana, as collateral security.

(b) Upon default in repayment by the borrower company, the Banks initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT. The first such proceeding was O.A. No. 136/2016, titled Oriental Bank of Commerce v. M/s KMG A to Z Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which, after the merger of Oriental Bank of Commerce with Punjab National Bank, was renumbered as T.A. No. 406/2022 and is presently pending before the DRT-III. The Petitioner is arrayed as one of the Respondents in the said proceedings.

(c) Separately, Canara Bank instituted O.A. No. 29/2017, now renumbered as T.A. No. 2097/2023, titled Canara Bank v. M/s KMG A to Z Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which is pending before the DRT-II, wherein the Petitioner is also a Respondent.

(d) Both proceedings allegedly emanate from the same underlying debt and security arrangement.

(e) During the pendency of these recovery proceedings, Respondent No. 1, being the majority lender in the consortium, entered into a settlement with one of the co-guarantors, Mr. Rajiv Mittal, whereby the said co-guarantor was released from his personal guarantee and his mortgaged property was discharged for a consideration of Rs. 7.40 crores. The said settlement was recorded by the DRT vide Order dated 08.04.2024 in T.A. No. 406/2022. The Petitioner alleges that the settlement was entered into unilaterally and without his knowledge or consent, and that such selective discharge of one co-surety has the legal consequence of discharging or reducing his own liability as a co-guarantor, by operation of Sections 133, 134, 139 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, (IC Act).

(f) Thereafter, the Petitioner filed two IAs before the concerned DRTs seeking his discharge as a guarantor and