KRISHNA AGRO INDUSTRIES. Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioners is as to the pendency of their application in IA No. 540/202 in S.A.No.227/2022. In the said application which is supported by an affidavit, the following prayer is made:

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submits that the application is moved seeking urgent interim protection; if applications of the kind are kept pending, the very purpose of filing them would be defeated and therefore, there is an eminent need for a direction to the DRT-II to consider the same expeditiously.

(3.) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank opposes the petition contending that the application lacks bonafide and the petitioners have been engaging in one or the other tactics to delay the repayment if not defeat. She also adds that the DRT has tremendous work load on its shoulders and therefore, it cannot be pressurized to consider the pending application expeditiously, as sought for by the petitioner debtors.