Tanya Soran And Others v. Smfg India Credit Company Ltd And Another

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred SA/70/2025 which is pending adjudication before the DRT-II. However, the same is not being heard due to non-functioning of DRT-II. He submits that petitioner may be protected till the DRT-II resumes its functioning. 2.

Heard.

3.

It is settled law that the petitioners cannot be left remediless especially when the same has been provided by a Statute. We also draw our support from the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2021 in the case of 'State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India' Special Leave Petition (C) No.10911/2021. Relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- SONIA GUGNANI 2025.03.03 16.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

"13.

With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stopgap arrangement, we request the concerned High Court(s) to entertain the matters falling within the jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, till further orders. 14.

We make it clear that once the Tribunal(s) is/are constituted, the matters can be relegated to the Tribunals by the High Court(s)."

4.

As DRT-II is stated to be non-functional, it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioners are protected for some time till the DRT-II resumes its functioning.

SONIA GUGNANI 2025.03.03 16.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh