M/s Narula Solvex vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others

M.M. Kumar, J.—The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against interlocutory order dated 4.5.2011 (P-9) and order dated 20.5.2011 (P-11). The aforesaid orders have been passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, respectively. The matter is pending with the Debt Recovery Tribunal wherein the petitioner has raised various issues.

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 18.8.2011, interim stay was granted and in pursuance thereof the petitioner is operating his rice mill by taking over physical possession. All that has been prayed by the counsel for the petitioner is that the status quo as it is obtaining today, may continue and the Debt Recovery Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the matter within a specified period.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, has stated that the physical possession of the rice mill, plant and machinery is with the petitioner although symbolic possession is of the bank. Mr. Chatrath has further stated that the security guards have been deputed by the bank.

Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, we dispose of the writ petition directing the parties to maintain status quo as it is obtaining today. The Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All the issues, including the issue of expenses in respect of security guards deployed by the bank, shall also be decided by Tribunal.

A copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges.