ORDER :

1. The writ petition is filed challenging the constitutional validity of proviso to Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and also prayer is made to quash the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred as ‘the DRAT’ for short) in proceeding No. AIR (SA) 523/2015 wherein in terms of order dated 24.8.2021, the DRAT rejected the appeal filed by the present writ petitioners.

2. The matter is listed for preliminary hearing. Learned counsel, Smt. Sumangala.A.Chakalabbi fairly submitted that challenge to the constitutional validity of proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is upheld and as such, the prayer to strike down the proviso to Section 18 is made in this petition is not surviving. Nevertheless, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not required to deposit the amount as required under proviso 2 and 3 of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

3. The facts unfolding in the petition can be summarised as under;

The Canara Bank, Hubli