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 Lacs before respondent

no. 1 within two months. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the

3

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 lacs 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.

4

(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) M.P. 01.

(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 can not 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 The State

Bank Of India) is relied upon.

5

8.

The order dated 15.9.2020 of this Court in M.P. 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 tha