JUDGMENT : S. MANIKUMAR, J. 1. On 18.01.2018, we passed the following order. "Material on record discloses that M/s. Slo industries Limited Company, Chennai, engaged in Iron and Steel Manufacturer and also in trading, borrowed, loan from Corporation Bank, Kilpauk, Chennai. Petitioners 2 and 4 are the guarantors. For default, bank has issued notice under Section 13(2) dated 14.07.2016, for which a reply dated 19.08.2016, has been given. Subsequently, another demand notice dated 17.12.2016 is stated to have been issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, without withdrawing the previous notice dated 14.07.2016. A reply dated 13.2.2017 has been sent for the subsequent demand notice, also. Thereafter possession notice dated 20/21.3.2017 has been issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 2. S.A.No.30 of 2017 has been filed before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, to set aside possession notice, issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. I.A.No.222 of 2017 has been filed for stay. In the said IA, petitioners have sought for the valuation reports purportedly prepared, by two valuers, who had been engaged by the Bank. O.A.No.105 of 2017 has been filed by Corporation Bank, Chennai, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai. One of the prayers sought for by the bank in O.A.No.105 of 2017 is for sale of the assets mortgaged with the bank. 3. When the matter stood thus, petitioners have identified prospective buyers, for two of the properties at Sholinganallur and Pallavaram, (Item No.3 and 7) of the schedule to O.A.No.105 of 2017, on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai. But the bank did not issue no objection certificate, for sale of the properties. 4. Thereafter, challenge to the measures taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was pending, and after hearing the arguments on 15.11.2017, orders were reserved. 5. When the matter stood thus, bank has issued sale notice dated 07.12.2017 under Rule 8 read with Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 6. As sale notice was contrary to the assurance / undertaking made by the bank, as stated supra, petitioners have issued notice dated 10.12.2017, objecting to the sale notice. 7. 5. When the matter stood thus, bank has issued sale notice dated 07.12.2017 under Rule 8 read with Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 6. As sale notice was contrary to the assurance / undertaking made by the bank, as stated supra, petitioners have issued notice dated 10.12.2017, objecting to the sale notice. 7. However, the petitioners were advised to challenge the sale notice, which according to them was in conflict with the assurance and also not in conformity with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules 8 & 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and that the mandatory requirement under the said rules, has not been followed. 8. Thus, in the abovesaid circumstances, petitioners have filed S.A.No. 5 of 2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai with the prayer to set aside the Sale Notice Ref.No.OR/427/2017-18 dated 07.12.2017, issued under Rule 8 read with Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in respect of the properties set out in the schedule and all actions taken pursuant to the same, as invalid, illegal and non-est and consequently, and restore possession of the Schedule Properties to the respective applicants. 9. Pending disposal of S.A.No.5 of 2018, in I.A.No.25 of 2018 petitioners have sought for an interim stay of the Sale Notice OR/427/2017-18 dated 07.12.2017, issued under Rule 8 read with Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, proposing to sell the properties specified in the Schedule to this Securitisation Application in E-Auction to be held on 19.01.2018. 10. Petitioners have also contended that vide letter dated 06.01.2018, addressed to the bank, they have informed the bank that, in respect of Item No.6 of the schedule, there is a proposed purchaser willing to purchase the property for Rs.12 Crores, though, the reserve price fixed in the sale notice was 9.6 Cores and that for the recent letter dated 06.01.2018, there was no response. 11. Bank has filed a counter affidavit dated 11.01.2018 and at paragraph No.16 submitted that the doors of the bank are always open to the applicant to bring the buyer for Item No.6 for a sum of Rs.12.00 Crores any time before the auction date and that the bank is agreeable to release the property. 12. 11. Bank has filed a counter affidavit dated 11.01.2018 and at paragraph No.16 submitted that the doors of the bank are always open to the applicant to bring the buyer for Item No.6 for a sum of Rs.12.00 Crores any time before the auction date and that the bank is agreeable to release the property. 12. Thereafter, arguments have been advanced in I.A.No.25 of 2018 on 12.01.2018 and on 17.01.2018, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, is stated to have passed the following oral orders "Detailed order will follow in separate sheets, IA allowed. Interim Stay granted in I.A.No.25 of 2018 with condition as to deposit 25% of the sale notice dated 07.12.2017, 15% to be paid before the auction date and remaining 10% to be paid within seven days from the auction date, failing which the interim stay will stand vacated." 13. On the above submissions, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai is stated to have passed orders, in the open Court and that the learned counsel for the petitioner is stated to have taken down the order, as above. 14. Instant writ petition is filed against the abovesaid interim order dated 17.01.2018 on the grounds inter alia that the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, has failed to consider that the borrower had arranged for a prospective buyer to purchase Item No.6 of the schedule and when a request dated 10.12.2017 was made to withdraw the sale notice, the same was not considered by the bank. Petitioner has further contended that on the letter dated 13.12.2017, seeking no objection for negotiating sale of two properties, the same was not entertained by the bank. 15. One of the challenges made to the abovesaid order dated 17.01.2018 is that, whenever a tribunal/court passes an order, the same should contain the reasons therefor, and according to Mr.Menon, learned counsel for the petitioners, when prima facie violation of the mandatory requirements, of Rule 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, has been substantiated, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai ought to have granted interim stay of the sale notice, without imposing any onerous condition of directing deposit of 25% of sale notice, when subject matter of sale is the prayer in O.A.No.105 of 2017, filed by the bank for recovery. Scheduled property in I.A.No.222 of 2017, is the same in the sale notice dated 07.12.2017, challenged in S.A.No.5 of 2018, before Debts Recovery Tribunal. 16. Scheduled property in I.A.No.222 of 2017, is the same in the sale notice dated 07.12.2017, challenged in S.A.No.5 of 2018, before Debts Recovery Tribunal. 16. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2008 (7) SCC 96 , Mr.Menon, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that granting of interim order, without according reasons, has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, sought for interference. 17. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the abovesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, is extracted "5. In our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the High Court ought not to have disposed of the appeal without recording reasons. This Court has deprecated the practice of disposing of matters without recording reasons in support of such decision. It has been insisted that when the matter is decided by a Court, reasons must be recorded in support of such decision. It is because the aggrieved party may make grievance in the superior Court that the reasons recorded by the trial Court were non- existent, extraneous, irrelevant, etc. The successful party, on the other hand, may support the reasons recorded by the Court in his favour. Finally, the superior Court may also consider whether reasons recorded by the Court in support of the order passed by it were in consonance with law and whether interference is called for. If the final order is without any reason, several questions may arise and it will be difficult for the parties to the proceedings as well as the superior Court to decide the matter one way or the other. This Court has, therefore, deprecated the practice of pronouncing final order without recording reasons in support of such order. 6. Before more than two decades, in State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, (9184) 1 SCC 596, the Court said: "We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the order, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment." 18. Inviting the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.16 of the counter affidavit, filed in I.A.No.25 of 2018 in S.A.No.5 of 2018 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that given the sufficient time, the petitioners would bring the buyer for Item.No.6 for Rs.12 Crores as assured and that therefore, this Court may pass appropriate orders, having regard to the date fixed for auction i.e. 19.01.2018. 19. From the above, it could be deduced that though arrears are huge, legal issues have been raised, which probably prompted the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai to pass an interim order, granting stay of the auction, subject of course to the condition of deposit of 25% of the amount mentioned in the sale notice, in two installments i.e 15% to be paid before the auction date and the remaining 10% to be paid within 7 days from the auction date. There cannot be any stay of auction, on condition that 10% should be paid, within seven days from the date of auction. Reason appears to be erroneous. However, our observation, is on the basis of the typed version of the oral order dated 17.01.2018. 20. There cannot be any stay of auction, on condition that 10% should be paid, within seven days from the date of auction. Reason appears to be erroneous. However, our observation, is on the basis of the typed version of the oral order dated 17.01.2018. 20. In the light of the above discussion and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, we are inclined to grant interim stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 17.01.2018, passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.25 of 2018 in S.A.No.5 of 2018 in so far as it imposes the condition of deposit of 25% of the amount mentioned in the Sale Notice dated 17.12.2017, i.e., 15% of which to be paid before the 19.1.2018 (Date of auction) and remaining 10% to be paid within 7 days from the said date by the petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petition. 21. Notice to respondents 2 and 3, through Court and privately, returnable by 01.02.2018. 22. Post on 01.02.2018. 23. Parties are at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Authorised Officer, Corporation Bank, Kilpauk, Chennai, of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.1216 of 2018 and WMP No.1518 of 2018." 2. Before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, the Authorized Officer, Corporation Bank, Chennai and other respondents in S.A.No.5 of 2018 have filed a memo in the month of January 2018, which is extracted hereunder. "It is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Tribunal as under. In the above S.A. the Hon'ble Tribunal by order dated 17.01.2018 has directed the Applicant to deposit 15% of the amount claimed in sale Notice on or before 19.01.2018 and another 10% of the amount within 7 days. Whereas the applicant had preferred Writ Petition in W.P.No.1216 of 2018 against the said order in the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court by ex-parte order dated 18.01.2018 had stayed, the portion of the order imposing the condition. In effect the sale was stayed without any condition. Therefore the sale was not held although there were bidders. In view of the fact that the sale has not taken place on 19.01.2018, the S.A. become infructuous. Hence, the S.A. may be dismissed. The copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court is enclosed". 3. In effect the sale was stayed without any condition. Therefore the sale was not held although there were bidders. In view of the fact that the sale has not taken place on 19.01.2018, the S.A. become infructuous. Hence, the S.A. may be dismissed. The copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court is enclosed". 3. Placing on record the memo of the bank that sale did not take place on 19.01.2018, prayer made in W.P.No.1216 of 2018, has become infructuous. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.