The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Tribunal has the power to impose reasonable costs, it cannot impose conditions that negate the purpose of adjudication. The judgment emphasizes the need for judicious exercise of discretion and the requirement to provide reasons for decisions.

ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. : – This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 1-8-2022 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Tribunal), whereby while ordering restoration of the S. A. No. 176/2022, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 2-5-2022, the learned Tribunal directed that the SA will be restored subject to fulfilling certain conditions.

Submissions of petitioners : – 2. The petitioners have assailed this order dated 1-8-2022 mainly on the grounds : (i) That the Tribunal had jurisdiction to restore the securitization application (SA) subject to payment of reasonable cost but the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to impose the unreasonable conditions, which have no nexus with imposition of cost. (ii) The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to put such onerous conditions and therefore, such without jurisdiction order can be impugned without availing statutory alternate remedy under section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 (Act of 2002).

3. To elaborate, Shri Udit Maindiretta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed aforesaid SA before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 11-4-2022 granted interim protection to the petitioners by directing that till next date of hearing, no sale certificate be issued. It is worthnoting that the Tribunal did not impose any condition while granting interim relief. No doubt, the petitioners’ counsel did not appear on certain dates and the Tribunal recorded that last chance is given the applicants. The Tribunal also made it clear that if on the next date of hearing the applicants seek adjournment, the Tribunal may vacate/withdraw the interim protection relating to non-issuance of sale certificate.

4. Counsel for the petitioners admittedly remained absent before the Tribunal on the next date i.e. 2-5-2022. The Tribunal by order dated 2-5-2022 dismissed the SA for want of prosecution.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed application seeking restoration of the said securitization application. The said application was heard on 1-8-2022 and decided by the impugned order. Shri Udit Maindiretta, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to paragraph-12 of the impugned order urged that the petitioners relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court and the judgments of this Court to show that such conditions while restoring the matter cannot be imposed. The Tribunal although reproduced the said judgments to some extent, did not deal with the principles laid down in the said judgments. The Tribunal imposed the condition of depositing Rs. 02 crores in 4 installments within 2 months out of the outstanding amount. The installments required to be paid are also mentioned in the said condition. It is mentioned that after depositing the final installment, SA No. 176/2022 will be restored for hearing. After depositing first installment, ad-interim protection granted on 11-4-2022 will automatically revive. By imposing such conditions, the Tribunal restored SA No. 176/2022.

6. The reference is made to 2014(1) M.P.L.J. 520, Alok Saboo vs. State Bank of India and 2014(2) M.P.L.J. 379, R. R. Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Bank of India to bolster the submissions that the Tribunal is although competent to impose the costs, was not justified in putting aforesaid conditions. This Court deprecated the orders impugned in the said cases whereof stringent conditions were imposed by the Tribunal.

7. It is submitted that the petitioners in paragraph-5.5 of this petition have categorically pleaded that conditions so imposed are onerous and impermissible. The same will negate the very purpose of adjudication of the case on merits.

8. In view of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in (1998) 8 SCC 1, Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others and (2003) 2 SCC 107, Har