JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Petitioner United Bank of India has approached this Court challenging an order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate tribunal”) dated 26.6.2016, staying e-auction of property in question, scheduled for 21.6.2016. Application for waiver has been allowed simultaneously, permitting the defaulters to deposit 25% amount till the date of auction, after adjusting the amount deposited after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 2. Facts in brief are that commercial loan was availed under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Scheme by respondent firm on 19th February, 2010. Overall credit limit of Rs. 23,75,000/- for Ice and Ice-cream Unit was sanctioned. It consisted of a term loan of Rs. 16,15,000/-, repayable in 84 monthly installments of Rs. 19,226/- per month, beginning from February, 2010 besides interest as given in schedule to the sanction letter. Working capital amounting to Rs. 7,16,000/- was also sanctioned and had to be paid in 84 monthly installments of Rs. 9,048/- alongwith interest. Terms of loan were duly accepted and a biding agreement came into being. Respondent No. 3 is the proprietor of the respondent No. 2 firm and respondent No. 4 is the guarantor. Respondent No. 4 admittedly executed a equitable mortgage of house No. 260/129/2, Himmatganj, Allahabad, which is the subject-matter of e-auction. 3. Default in payment of loan amount in terms of loan agreement is not disputed. A notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 31st August, 2013, showing a liability of Rs. 27,53,563/- alongwith future interest. Recovery notices were also issued from time to time and respondent firm requested for grant of further time to repay the amount, but to no avail. Possession notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 10th April 2014. Ultimately bank proceeded with auction of mortgaged property vide notice dated 28.8.2014, fixing 8th October 2014 as the date of auction. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, at this stage filed a securitization appeal No. 364 of 2014 on 30th September, 2014. This appeal came to be dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) on 28th August 2015. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of this appeal vide order dated 28.8.2015, respondent No. 2 and 3 then preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was registered as securitization appeal No. 256 of 2015. This appeal came to be dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) on 28th August 2015. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of this appeal vide order dated 28.8.2015, respondent No. 2 and 3 then preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was registered as securitization appeal No. 256 of 2015. Alongwith appeal, an application for waiver from pre deposit was also filed alongwith stay application. An objection was also came to be filed by the petitioner in the matter. 5. It transpires that while securitization appeal of petitioner remained pending before the appellate tribunal, a fresh date for auction was fixed on 21.6.2016 vide notice dated 10.5.2016. Aggrieved by this notice respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred a fresh appeal under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 21st May 2016. An objection to such appeal was filed by the petitioner on 6th June, 2016. The Tribunal disposed of stay application while refusing to interfere with e-auction fixed for 21st June. The order of Tribunal dated 7th June 2016 is reproduced : “Ld. Counsel Sri Ashok Pandey is present on behalf of the applicant. Ld. Counsel Sri. K.M. Asthana is present on behalf of the respondent bank. Counsel for the bank filed written objection. Copy reserved. While arguing on stay application, counsel for the applicant submitted that he has no objection if bank may auction the property under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 but bank is under obligation to disclose the arbitration proceedings pending before the Hon’ble High Court to the intending purchasers. He further submitted that he has no other grouse at this stage as far as disposal of stay application is concerned. Whereas counsel for the bank submitted that bank has every right to auction the property and is not under obligation to disclose anything to the intending purchaser regarding alleged arbitration proceedings. He further submitted that the said property is not subject-matter of arbitration proceedings. In rebuttal counsel for the applicant submitted that as one arbitration dispute is pending regarding partnership firm before Hon;ble High Court as such bank is under obligation to disclose such fact to all the bidders to avoid multiplicity of litigation. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In rebuttal counsel for the applicant submitted that as one arbitration dispute is pending regarding partnership firm before Hon;ble High Court as such bank is under obligation to disclose such fact to all the bidders to avoid multiplicity of litigation. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In fact applicants have referred partition deed dated 18.3.1977 annexed at page 126 of S.A. and partnership deed dt. 25.3.1977 annexed at page 150 of the S.A. In which the mortgagor of the bank is not party, so I am of the considered opinion that if at all some dispute is pending before Hon’ble High Court regarding said documents, the bank is not under obligation to convey any litigation between third persons to the purchasers under securitization process. The stay application is accordingly disposed of. The applicant is directed to file rejoinder within 15 days. Post the matter on 12.7.2016 for final hearing.” 6. The order of Tribunal dated 7th June 2016, has been allowed to become final. No appeal under Section 18, has been filed against it. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, however, appear to have moved an application on 14.6.2016 for stay in their appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal being S.A. 256 of 2015. An objection was filed by the petitioner raising various grounds. The Appellate Tribunal by the order impugned has allowed the waiver application to the extent of 75% and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been permitted to deposit 25% pre deposit till the date of e-auction. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the appellate order reads as under : “12. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that as per the second proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower/guarantor has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal 50% of the amount due from him as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. As per the third proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 18, the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than 25% of debt referred to in the second proviso. 13. As per the third proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 18, the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than 25% of debt referred to in the second proviso. 13. The language used in Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is very plain and clear that the Appellate Tribunal is not versted with any discretion, except to the pre-deposit amount to the extent of 25% of the debt due from the appellant for reasons to be recorded in writing. 14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. UCO Bank and others (Supra) and in the facts of the present case, I deem it just and proper to direct the appellants to deposit 25% of the demand amounting to Rs. 27,53,563/- raised by the respondent-Bank as per notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which is to be reduced by a sum of Rs. 2,47,541/- which has already been paid by the appellants after the demand notice. This amount is to be paid before the auction sale of the property in question scheduled to be held on 21.6.2016 in the form of Demand Draft in the name of the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, who shall keep the sasme in FDR for a period of six months n the Nationalized Bank in auto renewal scheme. 15. The waiver application is accordingly decided. 7. Tribunal at the same time has proceeded to stay the auction/sale of the property in question fixed for 21st June, 2016. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, petitioner bank has filed the present writ petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed in the matter on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 which is taken on record. 8. I have heard Sri K.M. Asthana for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 5 and Sri Ashok Pandey, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the appellate order on the following grounds : (i) The grant of interim protection is unsustainable since no reasons have been assigned in the order. 2 to 4. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the appellate order on the following grounds : (i) The grant of interim protection is unsustainable since no reasons have been assigned in the order. (ii) No relief could be granted in respect of the e-acution fixed for 21st June 2016, in the appeal filed under Section 18 as it was against a previous notice, and had lost its efficacy, especially as a subsequent appeal was filed under Section 17(1) against fresh notice. (iii) The order dated 7.6.2016 rejecting stay application had attained finality and without any challenge laid to it, no stay could be granted. (iv) It is also contended that Appellate Tribunal could not entertain and grant relief on the interim application as condition of pre deposit of 25% was not met by then. 10. Sri. Ashok Pandey, Advocate, on the other hand has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has validly passed interim order for the reasons recorded therein, which requires no interference. 11. From the facts already noticed above, it is undisputed that a commercial loan was availed of by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the borrower failed to repay the loan amount in terms of the agreement. Proceedings under Section 13(2) were initiated vide notice dated 31.8.2013 and thereafter, possession notice under Section 13(4) dated 10th April, 2014 was also issued. Auction notice of mortgaged property was issued on 28.8.2014 fixing 8th October, 2014 as the date of auction. The proceedings were challenged by filing appeal under Section 17(1) of the Act, 2002 being securitization appeal No. 364 of 2014. This appeal of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been rejected on 28.8.2015. In appeal filed against it under Section 18 No. 256 of 2015 neither the requirement of pre deposit in terms of Section 18 was met nor any interim protection was granted. 12. The date for auction fixed on 8.10.2014 had expired. A fresh auction notice was published on 10.5.2016 fixing 21st June 2016 as the date for holding of e-auction. Respondents opted to challenge the fresh e-auction notice by instituting a fresh appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act of 21st May 2016. The filing of fresh appeal by respondent Nos. The date for auction fixed on 8.10.2014 had expired. A fresh auction notice was published on 10.5.2016 fixing 21st June 2016 as the date for holding of e-auction. Respondents opted to challenge the fresh e-auction notice by instituting a fresh appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act of 21st May 2016. The filing of fresh appeal by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in law, would mean that respondents opted not to pursue their grievance in pending appeal before under Section 18 of the Act. This appears to have been done as a fresh cause had arisen and for pursuing the appeal under Section 18, the respondents had to comply with the requirement of pre deposit in terms of Section 18(1), where as, no such requirement existed if a fresh appeal under Section 17 was filed. It was however open in law for the respondents to have filed a fresh appeal under Section 17 which they opted. 13. However having opted to choose such course and having failed to get any interim relief from the Tribunal, respondents gave up their challenge in the fresh appeal under Section 17 and reverted back to the appeal pending under Section 18. The order of Tribunal dated 7.6.2016, already extracted, is not even challenged. No appeal under Section 18 was filed against it. Instead a fresh application for stay was preferred in their pending appeal before Appellate Tribunal being S.A. No. 256 of 2015. 14. The Appeal before appellate Tribunal was pending on the date of issuance of fresh auction notice dated 10th May 2016, and in case respondent Nos. 2 and 3 intended to question the fresh auction notice in their pending appeal under Section 18, there was no necessity of having filed a fresh securitization appeal under Section 17. However, after having elected not to challenge the fresh auction notice in pending appeal under Section 18, and filing a fresh appeal under Section 17 against it, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 could not thereafter give up their appeal against fresh auction notice and straightaway challenge the auction notice in appeal arising out of the previous auction notice. This Court finds substance in the argument of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 could not thereafter give up their appeal against fresh auction notice and straightaway challenge the auction notice in appeal arising out of the previous auction notice. This Court finds substance in the argument of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 having given up their challenge in the fresh auction notice in the appeal filed against it, could not have pressed their pending appeal under Section 18 for challenging the fresh auction notice. Admittedly, the scope of appeal under Section 18 was restricted to the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting challenge to the previous auction notice. The fresh auction notice was not the subject-matter of challenge in previous appeal filed under Section 17 or the orders passed thereafter. A fresh cause, therefore could not have been brought before the appellate forum in the pending appeal. The Appellate forum, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the fresh auction notice in the pending appeal arising out of previous e-auction notice. Particularly, as the challenge made to the fresh auction notice by invoking Section 17 was not pursued. 15. Even otherwise, this Court finds that absolutely no reasons have been assigned for grant of interim protection to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Apparently, the default in repayment of loan was established and the only ground pressed was the pendency of some arbitration, which the respondents wanted to be made known to the intending purchaser. It was not open for the Appellate Tribunal to have stayed the e-auction without specifying reasons for grant of such interim protection. Law is settled that reasons must be assigned even for grant of interim protection. (See: Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India and other, AIR 1976 SC 1785 , G.Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society and others, (2010) 2 SCC 497 and Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496). 16. This is particularly so as proceedings under SARFAESI Act have been undertaken. Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, 2010 AIR SCW 5267, has been pleased to observe that in cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which would ultimately be detrimental to the economy. Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, 2010 AIR SCW 5267, has been pleased to observe that in cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which would ultimately be detrimental to the economy. The observation of the Apex Court applies equally to the proceedings of Appellate Tribunal when it proceeds to grant interim protection to a defaulter. Cogent reasons have to be assigned before the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction in the matter to grant interim protection. In the absence of reasons assigned for grant of relief by the Tribunal, the order itself is rendered bad. This Court also finds that interim relief has been granted by the Tribunal, even before requirement of pre deposit was met, which was impermissible. 17. In the facts and circumstances, as have been noticed above, this Court finds that the order of the Tribunal impugned in this petition suffers from lack of jurisdiction and is, otherwise, in teeth of settled principles of law, which cannot be sustained. 18. Writ petition, consequently, stands allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 20th June 2016 is set aside. Parties are left to pursue their remedy as are available to them in law. 19. Costs made easy. ———————