This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

assails the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 01.08.2022

(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 02.05.2022, 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 01.08.2022 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 11.04.2022 granted interim

- 4 -

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. 02.05.2022. The Tribunal by order dated

02.05.2022 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

01.08.2022 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 11.04.2022

will automatically revive. By imposing such conditions, the Tribunal

restored SA No.176/2022.

- 5 -

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.

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.

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 S