Judgment : Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the appellants and is directed against the order dated July 9, 2013 passed by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No.134 of 2012 thereby affirming the order dated August 17, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal–2 in-charge, Kolkata in Misc. (IA) No.287 of 2012 filed in S.A. No.266 of 2011. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the secured creditor has filed this application for recovery of the loan amount against the debtor under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. An amount of Rs.12 crores was sanctioned by the secured creditor in favour of the debtor/opposite party herein and out of the said amount, Rs.10.20 crores were disbursed and a sum of Rs.1.80 crores had been kept as security. Upon availing the loan, the debtor/opposite party herein did not repay the loan and as such, the secured creditor had to take steps for taking possession of the mortgaged property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2000. At the relevant time, the total dues of the creditor amounted to Rs.20.91 crores and for non-payment of the amount, the concerned Additional District Magistrate, South 24- Pargans fixed the date on August 17, 2012 for taking possession of the property in question and at that time the debtor took several pleas and a proceeding was lodged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal–II. It is pertinent to mention that the opposite party preferred a civil revision being C.O. No.1689 of 2012 against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal–II directing the opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores by May 25, 2012. Interim orders were passed by this Hon’ble Court staying the operation of the said order. But, the sid revisional application is still pending. While disposing of the application Misc. (IA) No.287 of 2012, by the order dated August 17, 2012, the Debts Recovery Tribunal–I, who was in-charge of the Debts Recovery Tribunal–II directed the secured creditor not to proceed further with SARFAESI action in respect of the property in question till further orders subject to payment of Rs.50 lakh by the applicant on or before August 29, 2002. (IA) No.287 of 2012, by the order dated August 17, 2012, the Debts Recovery Tribunal–I, who was in-charge of the Debts Recovery Tribunal–II directed the secured creditor not to proceed further with SARFAESI action in respect of the property in question till further orders subject to payment of Rs.50 lakh by the applicant on or before August 29, 2002. Being aggrieved by such order, secured creditor preferred the aforesaid appeal, which was disposed of affirming the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I who was in-charge of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II on the relevant day. The debtor has contended that there are some irregularities in the matter of taking possession as issued by the Additional District Magistrate, South 24- Pargans such as fixation of the valuation, sale of the entire property which is valued at Rs.40 crores, but, the minimum price for sale is fixed at Rs.20 crores, there is no indication as to part sale to satisfy the dues of the secured creditor as indicated above, the intending purchaser has been given undue advantage of 7 days to deposit 25% of the sale price though the rule provides for deposit of 25% of the sale price immediately and thus, there is a violation of Rule 8(5) and Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and as such the delivery of possession should be stopped. Upon such contention, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I passed the order of stay subject to the condition of payment of Rs.50 lakh as indicated above. Such amount has been deposited. What I find from the materials on record is that the creditor did not pay back the dues and it has paid a very nominal amount of Rs.50 lakh only and that too, as a condition for stay of taking possession of the property in question. The property in question is a big commercial structure and it is yet to be completed for construction of a “Mall” and different floors are yet to be constructed and as such, in my prima facie view, it is difficult to comply with the provisions of Rule 8(5) of the said Rules of 2002. Mr. The property in question is a big commercial structure and it is yet to be completed for construction of a “Mall” and different floors are yet to be constructed and as such, in my prima facie view, it is difficult to comply with the provisions of Rule 8(5) of the said Rules of 2002. Mr. Joy Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that since the debtor/opposite party herein is not complying the Court’s order and it is difficult to pass order for sale of the part of the property in question which is an unfinished structure, it is difficult for the creditor to decide which floor is to be taken into possession. Steps have been taken for disposal for the entire property. No prejudice is caused to either of the parties particularly the debtor, if the 7 days’ time is granted instead of directing to deposit 25% of the sale price immediately. There is no material that the debtor has approached for disposal of the same by the public auction or private treaty or a particular portion of the floor. He has also contended that the advertisement was made for sale. Even nobody responded, when the minimum price was fixed at Rs.20 crores and if the said property is to be sold fixing the minimum price at Rs.40 crores, nobody will respond at all. The registered valuer has recorded the valuation of the property in question at Rs.34.60 crores and the secured creditor is proceeding according to this valuation. Anyway, in my view, these are to be dealt with at the appropriate stage by the concerned Tribunal. Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite parties has referred to the decisions of (2010) 2 SCC 142 , (2011) 6 SCC 73 & (2009) 7 SCC 514 thus, he submitted that since the impugned order is cogent and justified and the discretionary relief has been granted, the same cannot be described as perverse. In exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the concurrent findings should not be set aside. Anyway, the said matter in dispute shall be disposed of in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II but the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I who was in-charge, passed the order impugned in consideration of the urgency in the situation. In exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the concurrent findings should not be set aside. Anyway, the said matter in dispute shall be disposed of in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II but the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I who was in-charge, passed the order impugned in consideration of the urgency in the situation. I find that the stay of taking possession of the property in question has been granted upon payment of a nominal amount in consideration of the dues to be paid by the debtor to the secured creditor. The Appellate Tribunal has confirmed the said order. Since the matter is still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II for decision, without going into making observations in details which should not be proper at this stage, the concurrent views relating to the matter in dispute, in my view, should be maintained provided the considerable amount is deposited by the creditors to take the benefit of stay of the proceedings. As recorded above, the debtor did not deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores as directed earlier by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the civil revision is pending over the matter. This is another round of litigation and so it appears that the litigations are going on and the situation is that the secured creditor is being deprived of its dues in spite of strict provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to deal with such matters. If the matter is to proceed in such a fashion, the object of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will certainly be frustrated. Since the matter is pending for final decision and this application has arisen out of an application as indicated above, I am of the view that the decisions referred to by the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party should not be discussed in details so that the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal will not be influenced in any way by my observations. So far as non-disbursement of Rs.1.8 crores by the secured creditor in favour of debtor is concerned, this fact shall be considered by the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal at the appropriate stage. Similarly whether the minimum price as determined by the concerned creditor on the basis of the report of a valuer is proper or not shall be decided at the appropriate stage of the Debts Recovery Tribunal proceeding. Similarly whether the minimum price as determined by the concerned creditor on the basis of the report of a valuer is proper or not shall be decided at the appropriate stage of the Debts Recovery Tribunal proceeding. But, as the amount of Rs.50 lakh appears to be scanty, in consideration of the total dues to be paid by the debtor to the secured creditor, I am of the view that the stay shall be granted subject to the payment of Rs.5 crores only by the opposite party in favour of the secured creditor by 16th November, 2013 without fail. Accordingly, the debtor/opposite party herein is directed to pay of deposit a sum of Rs.5 crores only by November 16, 2013 in favour of the secured creditor. If such amount is paid/deposited, the impugned order of stay as passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and affirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order shall continue up to the end of December, 2013. The Debts Recovery Tribunal too is directed to dispose of the said proceeding within December 2013 without fail. If no deposit is made as indicated above within the stipulated period, the order of stay as passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall stand automatically vacated without any reference to this Court and the secured creditor will be free to proceed with the matter of taking possession of the property in question in accordance with law. The orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal stand modified accordingly. The application is disposed of to the extent indicated above. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. Later:- After passing the Judgment, the learned Advocate for the opposite parties prays for stay of operation of the judgment and order. Upon due consideration of the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides, the prayer for stay of operation of judgment and order is considered and rejected.