amount due is ₹ 26,25,000/- and in view of the fact that the appellant was interested in settling the dues, the direction was granted to pay the aforesaid amount in two tranches one of which is ₹ 13,25,000/- to be paid by the next day and the balance was to be paid within two months. It is pointed out that the appellants had approached the respondent with an OTS proposal which was not accepted by the respondent bank and hence rejected. The fact remains that the challenges raised to the Sarfaesi action have not been considered in the order passed by the D.R.T. When an application for interlocutory relief is sought, the relief is sought till the disposal of the S.A. and it is incumbent upon the D.R.T. to go into the merits and find out whether there is a prima facie case made out. It is also to be seen whether there is a balance of convenience and irreparable injury caused to the appellant. But without going into those aspects, the D.R.T. has directed payment of an amount as if, the D.R.T. is functioning for recovery of the debt due to banks. The functions of the D.R.T. under the SARFAESI Act are to quash the proceedings if it is not in accordance with the law and to dismiss the S.A. if it is found that it is in accordance with the law. If the D.R.T. finds that a prima facie case is made out and the S.A. has to be heard in detail, then an injunction can be granted till the disposal of the S.A., which can also be on certain conditions of payment of money towards the debt. But granting of stay till a particular time on payment of an amount, and then again leaving the applicant in the lurch to come up with another application on issuance of another notice for taking possession is not a proper method in which the applications are to be dealt with. Hence, the order of the D.R.T. is not
