The court directed the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal to decide all pending interim applications within a specified timeframe upon the agreement of the parties, treating the existing status-quo order as ad-interim relief.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court by calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (In-charge of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai) in I.A. No.734 of 2025 (WOD) in Regular Appeal Diary No.1832 of 2025. By the said order, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai has ordered status-quo in favour of appellant therein (borrower).

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Ms.Megha Jani assisted by learned advocate Mr.Anvesh Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Neeraj Vasu for respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr.Ritesh Patadia for respondent No.3.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Ms.Megha Jani, at the outset, submitted that the order impugned passed in an application for waiver of statutory deposit and as such, there is no discussion whatsoever on merits of the case. Still, however, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by the impugned order granted the status-quo. She, therefore, submitted that granting of status-quo in an application for waiver of statutory deposit is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Ritesh Patadia for the respondent No.3 submitted that granting of status-quo order is always a discretion available to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of status-quo granted by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai is perfectly justified. Learned advocate, however, submitted that the Appeal and the application for stay as well as other interim applications are still at large before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and at the time of deciding those applications, the grievance, if any, can very well be raised by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

5. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, after arguing the aforesaid, at the ad idem, agreed and requested that this Court may not decide the present case on merits; however, if a direction is issued to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to decide all the interim applications within some time bound schedule, the interest of justice would be met.

6. Considering the aforesaid, the request appears to be reasonable and is hereby acceded to.

7. In view of above, this Court, while disposing of this petition, without entering into the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to direct the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to decide all the interim applications within a period of fortnight from 8.6.2026. It is, however, clarified that the order of status-quo granted by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in the facts of the case be treated as ad-interim relief.

With above, the present petition is disposed of.