The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of an aggrieved person to prefer an appeal within the statutory period of 30 days under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the court's discretion to grant an order of interim stay, allowing the petitioner to challenge the final order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal within the period of limitation as provided under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Upon Considering the material on record and submissions made, on 25.01.2018, we passed the following orders:

"Contending inter alia that Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai in S.A.No.104 of 2017 dated 23.01.2018, while setting aside the possession notice dated 16.12.2016, as not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the rules made thereunder, has directed M/s. Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Company Limited, Chennai, petitioner herein to restore vacant possession of the secured asset more fully described in the schedule to S.A.No.104 of 2017 on or before 25.01.2018, without fail and being aggrieved by the further direction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai in S.A.No.104 of 2017 that M/s. Cholamandalam, directing the writ petitioner herein to pay compensation of Rs.1 Lakh to the respondent/applicant in S.A.No.104 of 2017, instant writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 23.01.2018.

2. In normal circumstances, order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, is appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. When permission to move writ petition was sought for, submission was made by Mr. S. Namasivayam, learned counsel for the petitioner that though an order dated 23.01.2018 in S.A.No.104 of 2017, has been recorded in the 'A' register, maintained by Debts Recovery Tribunal, full text of the said order, is neither available in the official website of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai or the Registry of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai has made the copy available. In view of the urgency expressed, we granted permission to move the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without there being any detailed order, furnished to the litigating party viz., M/s. Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Company Limited, the writ petitioner and when the aggrieved party has a right of an appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the rules framed thereunder, order made in S.A.No.104 of 2017 dated 23.01.2018 has been directed to be given effect within two days i.e. surrender vacant possession on or before 25.01.2018 and that there is also a direction to pay compensation of Rs.1 Lakh.

4. On the merits of the case, submission has also been made that declaration of possession notice dated 16.12.2016 as not in conformity with the provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002 and the rules made thereunder, is an error apparent on the face of record, as the said possession notice, was never the subject matter of challenge in S.A. No. 104 of 2017.

5. On the above aspect, attention of this Court was also invited to the prayer sought for in S.A. No. 104 of 2017, dated 11.12.2017 wherein, the applicant/respondent had only sought for directions to the authorised officer to remove the lock and seal and handover the vacant possession on trust to the applicant therein and for a further direction to grant four months time to enable the applicant therein to find out an alternate accommodation.

6. Submission has also been made that neither symbolic possession notice dated 16.12.2016 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 nor the actual physical possession dated 09.12.2017 were challenged in any proceedings.

7. In the light of the abovesaid contentions, Mr. S. Namasivayam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recourse to an alternate remedy is not mandatory; writ Court in its exercise of discretion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain the instant writ petition and issue suitable orders having regard to the urgency and the error apparent on the face of record.

8. We have heard Mr. S. Namasivayam, learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. We are aware that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India reported in 2007 (8) SCC 449 and other decisions of this Court, held that remedy under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the rules made thereunder is efficacious and that writ petition should not