CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have prayed for setting aside orders dated 13th and 16th January, 2003 passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Delhi in RC No. 97/2001 and RC No. 245/2001.

(2.) . Two appeals, being Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1/2003 and 2/2003 were filed against the aforementioned orders, of which Miscellaneous Appeal No.2/2003 was filed by the Petitioners. These appeals were decided by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II (for short the Tribunal) on 21st February 2003. The Petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order dated 21st February 2003 also.

(3.) . Since the orders passed by the Recovery Officer were the subject matter of appeals decided by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on 21st February 2003, essentially, the challenge of the Petitioners is to the correctness of the appellate order dated 21st February 2003, the two orders dated 13th and 16th January 2003 passed by the Recovery Officer having merged with the appellate order. We may mention, en passant, that the Petitioners had earlier challenged the correctness of the order dated 16th January 2003 by filing CW No. 526 of 2003. That writ petition was disposed of on 21st January 2003, inter alia, on the statement of learned counsel for the Petitioners that his clients would appeal against the order dated 16th January 2003 to the Tribunal. Consequently, there can be no dispute that what is really in question before us is the correctness of the order dated 21st February 2003 passed by the Tribunal.