1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR

BEFORE

SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

&

SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA

ON THE 08th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

WRIT PETITION No. 19444 OF 2022

Between :-

1. SMT PRAMILA DOSI,

W/O SHRI MAHENDRA

KUMAR DOSI, AGED ABOUT

55 YEARS, R/O HOUSE/PLOT

73-A,

GREATER

–

BRIJESHWARI,

PIPLIYAHANA,

INDORE,

(M.P).

2.

SHRI MAHENDRA

KUMAR DOSI, S/O LATE

SHRI BAPULAL DOSI, AGED

ABOUT 60 YEARS.

BOTH R/O HOUSE/PLOT 73-

A,

GREATER

–

BRIJESHWARI,

PIPLIYAHANA,

INDORE,

(M.P) 452016.

…...PETITIONERS

(BY SHRI MOHD. WAJID HYDER AND SHRI AARISH HYDER,

ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

IDFC FIRST BANK

LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE :

111, FIRST FLOOR, TULSI

TOWER,

STREET

NO.1,

SOUTH TUKOGANJ, GEETA

Signed by: MOHD AHMAD

Signing time: 9/9/2022

3:10:08 PM

Signature Not Verified

2

BHAWAN CHOURAHA, AB

ROAD INDORE, (MP).

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED

OFFICER.

2.

TAHSILDAR,

(JUNI

INDORE), COLLECTORATE

INDORE (MP)

3.

TAHSILDAR,

(SANYOGITA

GANJ),

COLLECTORATE

INDORE

(MP)

4.

DEBTS

RECOVERY

TRIBUNAL 797, SHANTIKUNJ,

SOUTH

CIVIL

LINES,

JABALPUR, (MP) THROUGH

ITS REGISTRAR.

……..RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI KISHORE SHRIVASTAVA, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH

SHRI SHASHANK VERMA AND SHRI MALIKARJUN KHARE,

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR

RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, Shri Justice

Sujoy Paul, Judge passed the following :

O R D E R

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

Signed by: MOHD AHMAD

Signing time: 9/9/2022

3:10:08 PM

Signature Not Verified

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.

Signed by: MOHD AHMAD

Signing time: 9/9/2022

3:10:08 PM

Signature Not Verified

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