DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, for the petitioners and Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar and Sri Shyam Rai for the respondent No. 3-Bank.
(2.) Since for the purposes of deciding the issue which has arisen in this petition, the Court does not intend to dwell upon the factual aspects, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself by the judgment and order which follows.
(3.) These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to assail the validity of an order dated 02.08.2017, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (as Incharge of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad) in Appeal No. 86 of 2017 which was preferred by the respondent No. 3-Bank challenging the order dated 27.02.2017, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitisation Application No. 435 of 2016, whereby the interim relief application moved by the petitioners-applicants was allowed and the respondent-Bank was restrained from taking physical possession of the secured assets during pendency of the Securitization Application; further providing that in order to recover its dues, the respondent-Bank may proceed afresh strictly under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to SARFEASI Act).;