AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the Petitioners Sri Saurabh Yadav and Sri K.D. Nag for the Respondents.
The Petitioners have challenged the order of rejection of stay application by the Appellate Tribunal and have further prayed that till the disposal of the appeal, auction of the goods scheduled to take place, be stopped.
Sri K.D. Nag has raised a preliminary objection saying that the writ petition against the order rejecting the stay application is not maintainable and this apart the Tribunal has given very cogent reason for rejecting the stay application, which does not require any interference by this Court.
Though lengthy arguments have been raised from both the sides that touch the merit of the appeal but we are of the view that in view of the observations made by the Tribunal that it did not find even, prima facie, case in favour of the Petitioners and good chance of success in appeal nor the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner and that it was not inclines to interfere with the adjudication order at the interim stage, while rejecting the application, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order so passed.
The order rejecting the stay application takes into consideration all the relevant facts and thereafter the aforesaid observation has been made.
If the Appellate Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter, while considering the stay application and exercised its discretion in not awarding the stay order, the High Court will not interfere under Article 226, unless it is established that such an exercise has not been made on sound judicial principles and is against the facts or in violation of law.
Consequence of the auction of the goods are given in the Act itself and would not cause any loss and injury to the Petitioners, as their rights have been protected.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.