- (1.) The learned Presiding Officer DRT, Jabalpur, vide her order dated 15th March, 2010 refused to grant interim stay, during the pendency of application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the SRFAESI Act'). She observed that the Appellant /applicant is not willing to pay the dues though sufficient time was granted. She further observed that the applicant has failed to establish any lapse on the part of the bank in auctioning the property for recovery of its dues and as such the said Tribunal could not intervene and prevent the recovery of the dues.
(2.) I have heard the Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act the DRT cannot impose any condition as per the law laid down in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India.
(3.) I find no force in this argument. The DRT has not imposed any condition. The Presiding Officer just mentioned that since the Appellant is not willing to pay the dues in dispute, therefore, she declined to stay the recovery proceedings. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mardia's case (supra) has got no application to the facts of this case.;