S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

Common question of law being involved, though the cases were heard separately, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In both the cases, the borrowers, while raised question of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Tribunal) jurisdiction to pass conditional interim orders, they have also challenged the validity of Section 18 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act (hereinafter referred to as NPA Act).

3. The borrower of the first set of cases, M/s.Hamosons Apparels Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an appeal u/s 18 of the NPA Act, wherein, by impugned orders dated 28th Jan., 2008, Appellate Tribunal passed conditional order on payment of Rs.2.5 Crores. The delay having condoned and interim order having passed, while bank preferred two writ petitions (W.P. Nos.3958 & 3959/08), against the conditional order of payment of Rs.2.5 Crores, M/s.Hamosons Apparels Pvt. Ltd., challenged the said order in W.P. No.5172/08.

Another borrower, Ms.S.Chitra, of the 2nd set of cases, has also challenged the conditional interim