As per case facts, the appellant bank (Bank A) and the respondent bank (Bank B) both extended credit facilities to a common borrower, taking security interest over the same stock ... of rice and paddy (Bank A via hypothecation in 2003, Bank B via pledge in 2013). When the borrower defaulted, Bank A initiated SARFAESI action and a dispute arose between the banks over the priority of charge and the right to the sale proceeds. The DRT and the High Court dismissed Bank A's application, directing the dispute to arbitration under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, holding that inter-se disputes between banks are outside the DRT's jurisdiction. The question arose regarding the mandatory nature and scope of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, specifically whether disputes between two secured creditors concerning the priority of charge over a common security, resulting from a borrower's default, fall within the scope of "non-payment of any amount due" and are therefore mandatorily arbitrable, even without a written agreement. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory and its scope is wide enough to cover the dispute, as it is "fundamentally related to the 'non-payment of any amount due including interest'" by the borrower. The provision creates a legal fiction that presumes consent, meaning no separate written arbitration agreement is necessary. The Court affirmed the High Court's direction for arbitration, finding the DRT and DRAT are primarily for borrower-lender disputes, not inter-se secured creditor conflicts.