The court emphasized the difference between maintainability and entertainability of a petition, and the importance of necessary pleadings to show the onerous nature of a condition imposed by the Tribunal.

ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. : – This petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) dated 22-6-2022 (Annexure P/3) whereby the Tribunal while granting interim relief to the petitioners imposed a condition of deposit of Rs. 1 Crore and 50 Lakhs before respondent No. 1 within two months. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the said condition, filed an application for review/ modification of order dated 22-6-2022 which came to be dismissed by another impugned order dated 8-7-2022 (Annexure P/6).

2. Draped in brevity, the admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioners being guarantors and mortgagors of their properties, obtained loan and could not repay the same to the Bank. The Bank proceeded against the petitioners by instituting application under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for brevity ‘Securitisation Act’).

3. In turn, the District Magistrate passed the order dated 20-5-2022. The said order of District Magistrate became subject matter of challenge in the appeal filed by the petitioners under section 17 of the Securitisation Act. The petitioners pressed their interim prayer before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 22-6-2022 granted a conditional interim order and directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs within fifteen days i.e. upto 7-7-2022 and remaining Rs. 01 Crore in two installments within 45 days therefrom. The review application was dismissed by passing a detailed order dated 8-7-2022.

4. Aggrieved, learned counsel for the petitioners raised three points before us –

(A) The Tribunal was not competent to impose any condition while granting interim relief. (B) Even if the Tribunal was competent to impose any condition, the Tribunal erred in imposing onerous condition in the order dated 22-6-2022. (C) As per the scheme of the Securitisation Act, once the application under section 17 of the said Act is filed, status quo should be automatically maintained by the Bank.

5. To bolster the said submission, Shri Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that this petition is maintainable in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 2004 Madhya Pradesh 1, M/s Kowa Spinning Ltd. and others etc. vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal and others. This Court came to hold that despite availability of alternative remedy, the petition before this Court is tenable.

6. The onerous condition cannot sustain judicial scrutiny is the next submission in support of which reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court reported in 2014(2) M.P.L.J. 379, R. R. Floors Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Bank of India. For the same purpose, the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 2082, Vijay Kumar Madan and others vs. R. N. Gupta Technical Education Society and others and another judgment of this Court reported in 2014(1) M.P.L.J. 520, Alok Saboo vs. State Bank of India was relied upon.

7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on certain interim orders passed by this Court wherein the protection was granted to the petitioners therein. For this purpose, the interim order dated 17-8-2022 passed in W. P. No. 18238/2022, M/s Ganpat Pannalal and others vs. State Bank of India, is relied upon.

8. The order dated 15-9-2020 of this Court in Madhya Pradesh 2027/2020, Prakash Singh and others vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., is relied upon to show that when an amendment was allowed subject to certain onerous conditions, this Court interfered with the same.

9. In support of the contention that there should be an automatic stay once the application under section 17 is filed by the borrower, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the language employed in sub-section (2) and (3) of section 17 of the Securitisation Act. It is submitted that unless the Tribunal gives its