SHREE HARI OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senor advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave appearing with learned advocate Mr. Virendra Gohil on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Vinay Bairagar appearing for learned advocate Ms. Himani Kini for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and learned senior advocate Mr. Asim Pandya appearing with learned advocate Mr. Prerak Oza on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 9.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) At this stage, it requires to be observed that from a perusal of the prayers, since it would be evident that the present petition is in the nature of challenging an interim order passed by the learned DRT, the present petition could have been disposed of by directing the petitioner either to approach the statutory appellate forum against the said order or learned DRT could have been directed to decide the securitisation application as expeditiously as possible, yet, since it appears that the petitioner, having approached this Court by filing the present petition and having been granted at-interim relief, has misused the same and hence, the present petition would have to be dealt with appropriately, than as noted herein above.