K.S. Radhakrishnan, CJ.—Petitioner has challenged constitutional validity of the Second Proviso to Section 18 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called “Securitisation Act”), on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned Counsel Mr. K.I. Shah, appearing for the petitioner submitted that proviso which insists pre-deposit of any amount for entertaining an appeal is not in consonance with the object and purpose of the Act, which makes remedy of appeal illusory. Learned Counsel submitted that such a stipulation is oppressive and onerous. Counsel further submitted that secured assets or its management with transferable interest has already been taken over by the secured creditor and it is under its control and therefore, there is no reason to insist for payment of any amount as a condition precedent for filing appeal. Learned Counsel further submitted that secured creditor can only proceed against secured assets and after having taken control of the secured assets, there is no justification in directing the aggrieved party to deposit any amount as a pre-co