A wary purchaser of a secured asset is caught in the litigious cross fire between the borrowers and the banker. Spent his money, burnt his fingers (as he claims), and now wants to salvage the situation. The purchaser wan

The situation given in the question is similar to the case of 'Thomas Chacko (Appellant) vs. The Chief Manager, Bank of India & Ors (Respondent)'. Decision: Petition allowed. Reason: Plainly read, Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers on every High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the "territories" over which the High Court exercises its jurisdiction. Then, should we reckon "territories" in the literal, geographical sense or in the figurative, legal sense as fiction. In 'Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Exercise (2007) 6 SCC 769', the appellant carried on business at Lucknow. A dispute involving the appellant, however, arose before the CESTAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction over the cases from the State of Uttar Pradesh, National Capital Territory of Delhi, and the State of Maharashtra. Against the Tribunal's order, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act before the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench held that it had no territorial jurisdiction; it dismissed the appeal. So the matter reached the Supreme Court. In the above factual backdrop, Ambica Industries has held that as for Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as also Clause (2) of Article 226, the High Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction over the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts within its territorial jurisdiction. And even if any part of the cause of action has arisen within its territory that will suffice. But this principle cannot be applied, holds Ambica Industries, when the High Court exercises its jurisdiction over a Tribunal extending its jurisdiction over more than one State. Then, "the High Court situated in the State where the first court is located" should be the proper forum. Without much ado, I may hold that Ambica Industries's assertion clinches the issue: when the High Court exercises its jurisdiction over a Tribunal extending its jurisdiction over more than one State, then the High Court in the State where the first court is located should be the proper forum. Indeed, here the first or the primary forum is the DRT, Ernakulum. So this Court can eminently exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the DRAT, Chennai. Here, the petitioner wants a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal early. That said, this Court cannot be oblivious to the docket pressure the Appellate Tribunal faces. Nor can it set impracticable deadlines, for adjudication is not akin to answering a multiple-choice question paper. It is much more. A back-breaking, brain-racking exercise. So I queried with the learned Central Government Counsel about the Appellate Tribunal's convenience and the feasibility of an early disposal. He has, presumably on instructions, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal will dispose of the AIR (SR) No.460 of 2017 in three months' time. Under these circumstances, I hold that the DRAT, Chennai, will dispose of the AIR (SR) No.460 of 2017 expeditiously in three months.