As per case facts, a bank classified a borrower's loan as a non-performing asset and initiated recovery under the Securitisation Act, leading to the e-auction of a secured property where ... the petitioner was the successful bidder. The borrower was in liquidation and the guarantors were in personal insolvency. The guarantors filed an application before the DRT, challenging the bank's actions. The DRT, in an interim order, set aside the auction sale and directed the guarantors to deposit the bid amount. Aggrieved, the auction purchaser filed a writ petition. The question arose whether the DRT acted without jurisdiction by passing an interim order that effectively granted final relief, set aside an auction sale, and permitted mortgage redemption after the auction notice was published, contrary to Section 13(8) of the Securitisation Act and Supreme Court judgments, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy. Finally, the High Court found that the DRT committed a serious jurisdictional error by setting aside the auction at an interim stage, granting final relief, and allowing mortgage redemption post-auction notice, which directly contravened Section 13(8) of the Securitisation Act and established law. The DRT's order also granted relief beyond what was prayed for, constituting a fundamental procedural irregularity. Consequently, the High Court quashed the DRT's impugned order, directing the DRT to expeditiously decide the main securitisation application, leaving the question of the guarantors' locus standi open.