JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. This writ application is directed against the order dated 30-4-2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in S. A. No. 37 of 2011 as well as the order dated 30-4-2012 passed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 224 of 2010. 2. Case of petitioners is that they had taken loan from different Banks and all these loans were taken over by the opposite party-Bank and an amount of Rs. 1,46,17,562.00 was the only debit at one time but the account was treated as C. C. Account. The petitioners had already paid Rs.2,05,81,750.25 by 9-9-2011. In spite of the same, the opposite party Bank had made a demand of Rs. 39,87,933.25 in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioners had paid a sum of Rs. 30.75 lakhs against the payment made inclusive in Rs. 2,05,81,750.25. However, the Bank without taking the note of the same took step under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act showing a demand of Rs. 9,12,933.25. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,12,933.25 was to be adjusted against Rs. 13,11,734.75 already paid and the balance amount of Rs. 3,98,801.11 should have been returned by the Bank to the petitioners. However, when the Bank filed Original Application No. 224 of 2010 for recovery of its dues before Debts Recovery Tribunal, petitioners filed written statement taking all these grounds. Had the original Application been adjudicated with reference to the records of the Bank, it could have been found that all the dues of the Bank had been paid and the petitioners were entitled to get return of Rs. 3,98,801.00. Without proceeding in the Original Application, the Bank took step under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, sold the mortgaged property in public auction, realized the so-called dues and ultimately approached the Tribunal praying for withdrawal of the Original Application on the ground that the entire dues of the Bank have been recovered through auction sale. Challenging the action taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners had filed S. A. No. 37 of 2011. Challenging the action taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners had filed S. A. No. 37 of 2011. The said SARFAESI Appeal was dismissed on 30-4-2011 on the ground that the grounds taken by the petitioners in the said appeal did not come within the scope of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and no illegality having been found in the procedure adopted by the opposite party-Bank, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate the dispute raised before it by the petitioners. The opposite party-Bank appeared in the SARFAESI Appeal and filed counter affidavit stating therein that the account of the petitioners was declared N. P. A. on 30-11-2008 and notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 4-12-2008 demanding a sum of Rs. 39,87,933.25 as on 3-12-2008. The petitioners did not file any objection nor paid the demanded amount and, accordingly, notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, was published on 11-8-2009. After publication of the said notice, the petitioners requested the Bank not to proceed under the SARFAESI Act as they were willing to pay the dues of the Bank and, accordingly, time was granted to them. Petitioners having failed to pay the amount, the Bank intimated them that it would proceed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In compliance of the said letter, petitioners requested the Bank on 21-9-2010 for settlement of account at Rs. 20.00 lakhs under O. T. S. Scheme and grant three months time, but the demand made by the Bank was not disputed. The petitioners also filed W. P. (C) No. 16394 of 2010 with a prayer to direct the Bank to consider their O. T. S. proposal and not to proceed under the SARFAESI Act. By order dated 24-9-2010, this Court directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 9.00 lakhs within one month, but due to non-compliance of the said order, the writ application was dismissed on 9-11-2010 and the interim order of stay was vacated. After dismissal of the writ application, the Bank proceeded under the SARFAESI Act and took over possession of the mortgaged property on 29-1-2011. At that stage, the petitioners again submitted a proposal for settlement of the account on payment of Rs. 30.00 lakhs, but the Bank did not accept the same. The petitioners again enhanced their offer to Rs. 45.00 lakhs and thereafter to Rs. At that stage, the petitioners again submitted a proposal for settlement of the account on payment of Rs. 30.00 lakhs, but the Bank did not accept the same. The petitioners again enhanced their offer to Rs. 45.00 lakhs and thereafter to Rs. 51.00 lakhs in March, 2011. Though they promised to pay the said amount within fifteen days, after acceptance of the said offer by the Bank, they failed to deposit the amount, as a result of which, the Bank revoked the compromise and sale notice was published in September, 2011. The property was sold to the highest bidder in public auction and after adjustment of the dues of the Bank, the balance amount was paid to the petitioners. Therefore, nothing remained to be decided in the Original Application filed by the Bank and, accordingly, permission was sought for withdrawal of the same. 3. The question raised before the Tribunal was as to whether the defence of the petitioners taken in the Original Application filed by the Bank for recovery of its dues could be considered in the appeal filed by them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal in the impugned order held that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal is only called upon to examine as to whether the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made therein have been followed by the Bank or not. The Tribunal cannot go beyond the scope of section and adjudicate the dispute raised by petitioners in appeal filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 4. Shri M. K. Mallick, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and submitted that in an appeal filed under the said provision the Tribunal is not only required to see as to whether the provisions contained in the Act and Rules made therein have been followed by the Bank or not, it has to also see as to whether sale of the mortgaged property was justified or not. In the event, the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that sale of the mortgaged property was not justified, it can direct restoration of the mortgaged property to the borrower or the guarantor, as the case may be. In the event, the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that sale of the mortgaged property was not justified, it can direct restoration of the mortgaged property to the borrower or the guarantor, as the case may be. It was further submitted by Shri Mallick, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that had the Original Application been adjudicated on contest, the petitioners could have proved that the entire dues of the Bank had already been paid by them and on the other hand, they are entitled to refund of more than Rs. 3,00,000/- which had been paid in excess. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is limited and it cannot adjudicate the present dispute raised by the petitioners. The petitioners having failed to deposit the compromise amount, there was no option left for the Bank except taking recourse to Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and selling the property in public auction. The total outstanding dues of the Bank having been recovered from the auction purchaser nothing remained to be decided in the Original Application filed by the Bank and, accordingly, the Tribunal was justified in granting permission for withdrawal of the Original Application. 6. The question to be adjudicated in this writ application is the extent of jurisdiction of the D. R. T. under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 6. The question to be adjudicated in this writ application is the extent of jurisdiction of the D. R. T. under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The said provision for convenience is quoted below : If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management of the secured assets to the borrower or restoration of possession of the secured assets to the borrower, it may by order, declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured assets as invalid and restore the possession of the secured assets to the borrower or restore the management of the secured assets to the borrower, as the case may be, and pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13. 7. A bare reading of the provision shows that in an appeal filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal has to adjudicate as to whether steps taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of the Section 13 of the SARFEASI Act are in accordance with provisions contained in Act and Rules made therein or not. In addition to, the Tribunal can also examine as to whether the action taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by the secured creditor against the secured assets is valid or not. Therefore, the observation of the Tribunal that in the said provision it can only examine the steps taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rules made therein or not, does not appear to be correct. 8. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 2371 . 8. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 2371 . Analyzing Sections 13(2), 13(4) and Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Court made the following observation in paragraphs 80 and 81 of the judgment. The said observations are quoted below : Under the Act in consideration, we find that before taking action a notice of 60 days is required to be given and after the measures under Section 13(4) of the Act have been taken, a mechanism has been provided under Section 17 of the Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The above noted provisions are for the purposes of giving some reasonable protection to the borrower. Viewing the matter in the above perspective, we find what emerges from different provisions of the Act, is as follows : 1. Under sub-section (2) of Section 13, it is incumbent upon the secured creditor to serve 60 days notice before proceeding to take any of the measures as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. After service of notice, if the borrower raises any objection or places facts for consideration of the secured creditor, such reply to the notice must be considered with due application of mind and the reasons for not accepting the objections, howsoever brief they may be, must be communicated to the borrower. In connection with this conclusion we have already held a discussion in the earlier part of the judgment. The reasons so communicated shall only be for the purposes of the information/knowledge of the borrower without giving rise to any right to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, at that stage. 2. As already discussed earlier, on measures having been taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13 and before the date of sale/ auction of the property it would be open for the borrower to file an appeal (petition) under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 3. That the Tribunal in exercise of its ancillary powers shall have jurisdiction to pass any stay/interim order subject to the condition as it may deem fit and proper to impose. 4. 3. That the Tribunal in exercise of its ancillary powers shall have jurisdiction to pass any stay/interim order subject to the condition as it may deem fit and proper to impose. 4. In view of the discussion already held on this behalf, we find that the requirement of deposit of 75% of amount claimed before entertaining an appeal (petition) under Section 17 of the Act is an oppressive, onerous and arbitrary condition against all the canons of resonableness. Such a condition is invalid and it is liable to be struck down. 5. As discussed earlier in this judgment, we find that it will be open to maintain a civil suit in civil Court, within the narrow scope and on the limited grounds on which they are permissible, in the matters relating to an English mortgage enforceable without intervention of the Court. In view of the discussion held in the judgment and the findings and directions contained in the preceding paragraphs, we hold that the borrowers would get a reasonably fair deal and opportunity to get the matter adjudicated upon before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The effect of some of the provisions may be a bit harsh for some of the borrowers but on that ground the impugned provisions of the Act cannot be said to be unconstitutional in view of the fact that the object of the Act is to achieve speedier recovery of the dues declared as NPAs and better availability of capital liquidity and resources to help in growth of economy of the country and welfare of the people in general which would sub-serve the public interest. 9. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they had paid the entire dues of the opposite party-Bank and on the other hand, they were entitled to the refund of more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. If such contention of the petitioners is correct, sale of the mortgaged property was neither justified nor valid and validity of such sale at the instance of the Bank was required to be looked into by the Tribunal in the appeal filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Though the Bank has disputed the same, in our view, such dispute could be adjudicated by the Tribunal in order to find out the validity of the sale effected in a public auction. Though the Bank has disputed the same, in our view, such dispute could be adjudicated by the Tribunal in order to find out the validity of the sale effected in a public auction. From the reading of the entire appeal filed before the Tribunal, it appears that the following three issues were raised before the Tribunal for adjudication in the appeal : (i) Whether Rs. 2,10,81,750.25 (actually Rs. 2,14,98,647.25) discharged the loan of Rs. 1,46,17,562.25 at the Banks dues of Rs. 1,92,70,005/-, (ii) Whether Rs. 18,11,745/- was/is excess paid to be returned to the petitioners or otherwise adjustable. (iii) Whether 9% interest was chargeable by the Bank on the outstanding of Rs. 39,87,933.25 of the Sec. 13(2) Demand or the OA Demand of Rs. 49,93,364/- to reduce Rs. 1,92,70,005/-as per AIR 2001 SC 3095 , which could have been done by the DRT Cuttack, but was not done, on the contrary the learned DRT has ignored to decide OA No. 224/10 on the plea of withdrawn by the Bank and has held as per the Madras Full Bench Decision that it has powers to determine u/S. 17(3) in the SA. 10. The Tribunal has not addressed any one of the issues solely on the ground that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, it can only examine as to whether the opposite party-Bank has followed the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. As stated earlier, if the petitioners case that they had paid the entire dues of the Bank prior to sale of the mortgaged property is accepted, such sale of the mortgaged property becomes invalid in the eye of law and the Bank had no authority to sale the mortgaged property having received its entire dues. In order to examine the above, it was necessary on the part of the Tribunal to adjudicate the three issues raised before it in the appeal and it is well within the competency of the Tribunal to adjudicate such issues. These issues were also raised in the written statement filed in the Original Application by the Bank before the Tribunal, but could not be adjudicated as the Bank withdraw the Original Application having realized its dues by putting the mortgaged property in a public auction. Accordingly the issues raised by the petitioners remained unanswered in both the proceedings. These issues were also raised in the written statement filed in the Original Application by the Bank before the Tribunal, but could not be adjudicated as the Bank withdraw the Original Application having realized its dues by putting the mortgaged property in a public auction. Accordingly the issues raised by the petitioners remained unanswered in both the proceedings. In this connection, though a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1727 may not have any direct nexus not being a decision on Securitization Act, the principles laid down relating to the administration of justice has relevance. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall also take note of the said decision while deciding the appeal. Since the Tribunal is also comptent to pass interim orders in terms of the decision in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. : ( AIR 2004 SC 2371 ) (supra), if an application for any interim order is filed by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered on its own merit. 11. We, therefore, set aside the order in Annexure-1 passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh and answer the three issues raised by the petitioners with a reasoned order. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. 12. I agree. Order accordingly.