JUDGMENT : 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records of S.A. No. 584/2022 and set-aside the order dated 08.06.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1945/2023 and I.A. No.1949/2023 to the extent of condition of pre-deposit has been imposed. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the DRT, Jabalpur to decide the legal issues noted in para 7 to 15 of order dated 17.05.2023 in accordance with law; 10.3 To allow the cost of this petition with any other appropriate relief(s) may kindly be granted to the petitioner and, 10.4 Any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.” 2) The facts of the present case are the petitioner’s company, through its Directors, has availed various credit facilities from the respondent banks since the year 2008. Subsequently, the petitioner company, with the directors and guarantors, availed a cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs. 74.50 Crore and a term loan of Rs. 22.00 Crore, totaling Rs. 96.50 Crore from respondent banks 1 and 2. This was done under a consortium called "the PNB Consortium" in March 2015. Additionally, petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5 acted as personal guarantors, while petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 acted as corporate guarantors, executing guarantee agreements in favor of the consortium members (respondent banks) on 24.03.2015. To further secure the repayment of the aforementioned credit facilities, amounting to Rs. 96.50 Crore, petitioner number 1 along with the directors, created and extended an equitable mortgage on their immovable properties in favor of the lead bank of the consortium, i.e., respondent No.1/Punjab National Bank (PNB). The specific details regarding the properties are provided in the notices issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for shot, the Act, 2002), in favor of the bank on 24.03.2015. 3) Afterwards, petitioner No.1/company, with its Directors, availed enhanced fund-based and non-fund-based credit facilities amounting to Rs. 129.93 Crore. Out of this, the exposure of respondent No.1/PNB was Rs. 68.25 Crore, and respondent No.2/Union Bank of India (UBI) was Rs. 61.68 Crore. 3) Afterwards, petitioner No.1/company, with its Directors, availed enhanced fund-based and non-fund-based credit facilities amounting to Rs. 129.93 Crore. Out of this, the exposure of respondent No.1/PNB was Rs. 68.25 Crore, and respondent No.2/Union Bank of India (UBI) was Rs. 61.68 Crore. These credit facilities were obtained from the respondent banks under the consortium named "the PNB Consortium" in March 2018. In these loan transactions, petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5 acted as personal guarantors, while petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 acted as corporate guarantors, executing guarantee agreements in favor of the consortium members, i.e., the respondent banks. To further secure the repayment of the mentioned credit facilities totaling Rs. 129.93 Crore, petitioner No. 1 Company, along with its directors, created and extended an equitable mortgage. Additionally, petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5 extended the equitable mortgage on their immovable properties in favor of the lead bank of the consortium, respondent No.1/PNB bank, on 27.03.2018. 4) Following that, in June 2020, petitioner No.1/company, through its directors, also availed the Covid-19 Emergency Line of Credit (CELC) limit of Rs. 5.00 Crore from respondent No.2/UBI. In this loan transaction, petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5 acted as personal guarantors, while petitioner nos. 6 and 7 acted as corporate guarantors, executing guarantee agreements in favor of respondent No.2/UBI. To further secure the repayment of this credit facility, petitioner No.1/company, along with its Directors, and petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5, extended the equitable mortgage on their immovable properties in favor of the lead bank of the consortium, respondent No.1/PNB bank. The documents regarding the extension of the equitable mortgage are annexed as Annexure R/4. 5) Subsequently, in December 2020, petitioner No. 1 Company, through its Directors, availed the Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) Limit-I of Rs. 11.90 Crore to address liquidity crunch and cash flow mismatch resulting from the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. This credit facility was obtained from respondent No.1. In this loan transaction, petitioner nos. 2, 4, and 5 acted as personal guarantors, while petitioner nos. 6 and 7 companies acted as corporate guarantors, executing guarantee agreements in favor of respondent no. 1 bank. To further secure the repayment of this credit facility, petitioner No. 1 Company, along with its directors, and petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5, extended the equitable mortgage on their immovable properties in favor of the lead bank of the consortium, respondent No.1/PNB bank, on 24.12.2020. 1 bank. To further secure the repayment of this credit facility, petitioner No. 1 Company, along with its directors, and petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5, extended the equitable mortgage on their immovable properties in favor of the lead bank of the consortium, respondent No.1/PNB bank, on 24.12.2020. 6) Lastly, in March 2021, petitioner No. 1/company, through its Directors, availed the Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) Limit-II of Rs. 9.68 Crore from respondent No.1. In this loan transaction, petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5 acted as personal guarantors, while petitioner nos. 6 and 7 companies acted as corporate guarantors, executing guarantee agreements in favor of respondent No. 1. To further secure the repayment of this credit facility, petitioner No. 1 Company, along with its directors, and petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5, extended the equitable mortgage on their immovable properties in favor of the lead bank of the consortium, respondent No.1 on 31.03.2021. Thus, total amount of Rs. 158,39,98,105.76 was outstanding as on 30.06.2022. 7) Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued on 04.12.2021 to the borrowers as well as guarantors calling upon to discharge liabilities within a period of 60 days as stipulated in the notice. On 04.02.2022, representation was made by the petitioners before the respondent No.1 and vide order dated 19.02.2022; the objections were decided by the respondent No.1 alone. On 07.03.2022, Second Demand notice was issued by the respondent No.1 for itself and respondent No.2. On 08.05.2022, representation was made by the petitioners and again respondent No.1 alone decided the representation on 24.05.2022. Thereafter, possession was taken u/s. 13(4) of the Act, 2002 by the respondent No.1 for itself and respondent No.2 on 07.06.2022. Possession notice was published in the newspaper on 10.06.2022. 8) Meanwhile, the proceedings initiated by the respondent banks under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 were completed. The District Magistrate of Raipur and Durg have passed the orders on 20-02- 2023 and 20-03-2023, respectively. These orders were challenged by the petitioners in the Securitization Application (S. A.) No. 584 of 2022 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur on 23.06.2022. The petitioner raised various grounds in their written submission on the basis of pleading made in applications. Some of the grounds raised in the application for grant of stay and written submission are reproduced as under:- “2.2 Without making UBI as party DM could not have passed any order. The petitioner raised various grounds in their written submission on the basis of pleading made in applications. Some of the grounds raised in the application for grant of stay and written submission are reproduced as under:- “2.2 Without making UBI as party DM could not have passed any order. 2.4 In the order passed by DM, which is at page 35, in para 2 at page 36 it can be seen that there is reference to sanctioned amount of PB alone Rs. 87.18 Crore. 2.5 At page 37, third line from the top, there is reference to sanctioned amount of PNB only i.e. Rs. 87.18 Crores. 2.6 There is no reference to amount sanctioned/demanded of the UBI. 2.7 Order passed by the DM, Raipur is only for the PB and not for UBI. 2.8 That the amount referred in section 14 application/order is different than the amount claimed in 13(2) demand notice.” 9) Additionally, the petitioners filed two separate interim applications, registered as I.A. No. 1945/2023 and I.A. No. 1949/2023, seeking a stay on the effect and operation of the orders passed by the District Magistrate of Durg and Raipur, respectively, on the specified dates. The said interim applications were considered by the Learned Presiding Officer, and orders were passed on 08-06-2023. In this order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal granted conditional interim protection to the petitioners by allowing their application for stay and consequently stayed the execution of the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Durg and Raipur dated 20.03.2023 and 20.02.2023, respectively. However, the stay was subject to the onerous condition of depositing Rs. 15 crore in 12 equal installments until 08.12.2023. However, the stay was subject to the onerous condition of depositing Rs. 15 crore in 12 equal installments until 08.12.2023. The operative portion of the same has been reproduced herein below:- ^^17- mijksDruqlkj vkosnd i{k dh vksj ls varfje LFkxu vkosnu izLrqr Øaekd 1945@2023 tks ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] nqxZ }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-03-2023 dk fu"iknu LFkfxr fd;s tkus ls lacf/kr gS ,oa varfje LFkxu vkosnu Øekd 1949@2023 tks ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] jk;iqj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-02-2023 dk fu"iknu LFkfxr fd;s tkus ls lacaf/kr gS] lkesfdr :i ls fuEu 'krksZ ds v/;k/khu Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gS%& 1- vkosnd i{k vkxkeh 06 ekg ds vanj 12 leku fdLrks esa dqy 15]00]00]000@&¼iUnzg djksM :i;s½ mu ij cdk;k _.k ds vakf'kd Hkqxrku ds varxZr vius _.k ds vakf'kd Hkqxrku ds varxZr vius _.k [kkrs es tek djsaxsA 2- vkosnd i{k izFke fdLr 1]25]00]000@&¼,d djksM+ iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnuakd 08-08-2023 tek djsaxs] ikapoh fdLr 1]25]00]000@& ¼,d djksM iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnuakd 23-08-2023 rd tek djsaxs] NVoh fdLr 1]25]00]000@&¼,d djksM iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnukad 08-09-2023 rd tek djsaxs] lkroh fdLr 1-25-00]000@& ¼,d djksM iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnuakd djsaxs] vkBoh fdLr 1-25-00]000@& ¼,d djksM iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnuakd 08-10-2023 rd tek djsaxs] 09 oh fdLr 1-25-00]000@& ¼,d djksM iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnukad 23-10-2023 rd tek djsaxsa] 10oh fdLr 1-25-00]000@& ¼,d djksM iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnukad 08-11-2023 rd tek djsaxs 11 oh fdLr 1-25-00]000@& ¼,d djksM iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnukad 23-11-2023 rd tek djsaxsa ,oa vafre 12 oh fdLr 1-25-00]000@& ¼,d djksM iPphl yk[k½ :i;s fnukad 08-12-2023 rd tek dj nsaxsA^^ The petitioners have challenged this order in the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the conditions imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while granting the stay is burdensome, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2002. 10) In the present matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners respectfully makes the following submissions: 1. The issuance of a joint demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 by the respondent banks is in violation of the provisions of the said Act. It is crucial to note that separate sanction letters were issued, separate NPA dates were communicated, different amounts are to be recovered, and separate documents were executed by the respondents. Therefore, a joint demand notice cannot be issued by the respondent banks. It is crucial to note that separate sanction letters were issued, separate NPA dates were communicated, different amounts are to be recovered, and separate documents were executed by the respondents. Therefore, a joint demand notice cannot be issued by the respondent banks. Further, the notice issued u/s. 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was not in consonance with the Section 13(9) of the Act, 2002. 2. It is further contended that the representation of the petitioners cannot be decided by one bank on behalf of another. The petitioners assert that a specific issue was raised regarding the demand of the amount, which forms the crux of the matter. Regrettably, neither the respondents nor the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal considered this issue while deciding the application for grant of stay. 3. The learned counsel emphasizes that although there is a remedy to prefer an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), the controversy at hand is purely legal as demand notice has been issued in contravention of Section 13(9) of the Act. The alternative remedy should not serve as a bar in this case, as it does not clarify the disputed question of facts. Moreover, dismissing the plea or grounds raised by the petitioners in the present petition without due consideration would be unjust. 4. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority & others reported in 2023 LIveLaw(SC)70. Additionally, the case of Red Chilli International Sales v. Income Tax Officer and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16 is cited. Furthermore, the learned counsel draws attention to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc.Petition No.2186 of 2023 M/s. Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. And another v. Yes Bank Ltd and another.' In that case, the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to hear the parties afresh, while dealing with a similar issue. 11) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that the present petition is not maintainable since there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners. 11) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that the present petition is not maintainable since there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners. He argues that the petitioners can choose to file an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) or seek a review before the DRT, as per the provisions of Section 22(2)(c) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 12) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioners have taken a substantial loan amount but with intent to avoid repayment they have filed the instant petition. He contended that there is no flaw in the demand notice issued by respondent No.1, and the learned DRT, after considering all the submissions made by the petitioners, has passed the impugned order which does not warrant any interference. Additionally, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the submissions made by the counsel for respondent No.1. 13) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of 'Devendra Kumar Rai v. State Bank of India, Jabalpur' reported in 2022(3)MPLJ. The judgment states that interlocutory orders issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal can be appealed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) under Section 18(1) of the Act, 2002. Therefore, they argue that the present petition is not maintainable when there exists an efficacious alternative remedy. They also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. And Ors v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Anr.' reported in 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 320, where it was held that a party should not approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the statutory remedy, rendering the writ petition filed by the borrower under the Act of 2002 not maintainable. Furthermore, they cite the case of 'Varimadugu Obi Reddy v B Shreenivasulu and others' reported in 2023 2 SCC 168 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that if the borrower has an available remedy under Section 18 of the Act, 2002, writ petition against the dismissal of an application is not maintainable. Furthermore, they cite the case of 'Varimadugu Obi Reddy v B Shreenivasulu and others' reported in 2023 2 SCC 168 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that if the borrower has an available remedy under Section 18 of the Act, 2002, writ petition against the dismissal of an application is not maintainable. 14) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 15) It is not in dispute that the petitioners are borrowers and demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued by the respondents on 07.03.2022. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were called upon to pay the amount of Rs.88,53,94,944.02 pertaining to respondent No.1 and there was no demand with regard to respondent No.2. 16) As counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent No.1 has failed to comply with the provisions contemplated under Section 13(9) of the Act, 2002, consequently, respondent No.1 did not possess the right to issue a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002. The counsel contends that respondent No.1, as the secured creditor, did not represent 60% of the value of the outstanding amount. This non-compliance further strengthens the petitioners' case against the validity of the demand notice issued by respondent No.1. The counsel contends that respondent No.1, as the secured creditor, did not represent 60% of the value of the outstanding amount. This non-compliance further strengthens the petitioners' case against the validity of the demand notice issued by respondent No.1. 17) At this juncture, it would be advantageous to go through the Section 13(9) of the Act, 2002: “(9) [Subject to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in the case of] financing of a financial asset by more than one secured creditors or joint financing of a financial asset by secured creditors, no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise any or all of the rights conferred on him under or pursuant to subsection (4) unless exercise of such right is agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than 8[sixty per cent.] in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date and such action shall be binding on all the secured creditors: Provided that in the case of a company in liquidation, the amount realised from the sale of secured assets shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956): Provided further that in the case of a company being wound up on or after the commencement of this Act, the secured creditor of such company, who opts to realise his security instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debt under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), may retain the sale proceeds of his secured assets after depositing the workmen's dues with the liquidator in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of that Act: Provided also that liquidator referred to in the second proviso shall intimate the secured creditor the workmen's dues in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and in case such workmen's dues cannot be ascertained, the liquidator shall intimate the estimated amount of workmen's dues under that section to the secured creditor and in such case the secured creditor may retain the sale proceeds of the secured assets after depositing the amount of such estimate dues with the liquidator: Provided also that in case the secured creditor deposits the estimated amount of workmen's dues, such creditor shall be liable to pay the balance of the workmen's dues or entitled to receive the excess amount, if any, deposited by the secured creditor with the liquidator: Provided also that the secured creditor shall furnish an undertaking to the liquidator to pay the balance of the workmen's dues, if any. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section,-- (a) "record date" means the date agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than 8[sixty per cent.] in value of the amount outstanding on such date; (b) "amount outstanding" shall include principal, interest and any other dues payable by the borrower to the secured creditor in respect of secured asset as per the books of account of the secured creditor.” 18) Bare reading of the Section 13(9) makes it clear that in case of financing a financial asset by multiple secured creditors or joint financing by secured creditors, it is stated that no individual secured creditor can exercise their rights conferred under or pursuant to sub-section (4) unless the exercise of such rights is agreed upon by secured creditors representing at least 60% in value of the outstanding amount as on a record date. This provision emphasizes that any action taken in accordance with the agreement of the majority secured creditors shall be binding on all the secured creditors involved in the financing arrangement. 19) In the present case, the outstanding amount for respondent No.1 is Rs. 88,53,94,944.02, and for respondent No.2, it is Rs. 61,83,80,951.31. It is crucial to note that a legal issue is involved, which was not considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in its order, despite specific pleas raised in the application for stay and written submission filed by the petitioners. Therefore, considering the legal issue involved, the plea of alternative remedy raised by the respondents is rejected. 20) The petitioners, in response to the demand notice, filed an application for stay before the DRT on 09.05.2022 and reiterated their specific plea in the written submission. The DRT observed and acknowledged these pleas in paragraphs 11 to 17; subsequently passed an interim order thereby directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 15 Crore in 12 equal installments within six months. Upon reviewing the entire order dated 08.06.2023, it becomes evident that at paragraph 15, the DRT recorded its finding and conclusively determined that a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 1,98,39,98,105.76 was issued against the petitioners, requiring them to refund it and the possession order issued by the District Magistrate, Durg and Raipur on 20.03.2023 and 20.02.2023, respectively was stayed, subject to deposit of the aforementioned amount by the petitioners. 1,98,39,98,105.76 was issued against the petitioners, requiring them to refund it and the possession order issued by the District Magistrate, Durg and Raipur on 20.03.2023 and 20.02.2023, respectively was stayed, subject to deposit of the aforementioned amount by the petitioners. 21) It is important to note that the learned counsel for the respondents cannot disregard the fact that the DRT did not address the grounds raised by the petitioners in the application for stay, coupled with the written submission. 22) For the foregoing reasons, considering the provisions of Section 13(9) of the Act, 2002, the demand notice issued by respondent No.1 on 07.03.2022, in response the written submission moved by the petitioners, and the order passed by the DRT, it is evident that the DRT did not take into account the provisions of Section 13(9) of the Act, 2002 and the grounds raised by the petitioners in its order dated 08.06.2023. Since the tribunal has not adequately addressed the grounds raised by the petitioners and did not apply the provisions of Section 13(9) of the Act, 2002, the order dated 08.06.2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the DRT to pass the order afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and considering all the submissions made by the parties. 23) Since the S.A. No. 584/2022 is pending before the DRT, Jabalpur and both the parties are present before this Court, therefore there is no need to issue fresh notice. The tribunal shall reconsider the application for stay filed by the petitioners within a period of 15 days from today. Until a fresh decision is taken, the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur, and Durg on 20.02.2023 and 20.03.2023, respectively shall not be enforced. 24) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 25) In light of the aforementioned observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of.