KUMARS COTEX LTD Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.V. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Banks.

(2.) This Writ Petition is directed against the orders dated 10-12-2001 and 7-2-2002 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No.784 of 2001. We have perused both the orders impugned in this Writ Petition.

(3.) The Writ Petitioners are defendants in the O.A. It appears that the impugned order dated 10-12-2001 was passed in the absence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants without hearing their case. The impugned order says that no representation was made on behalf of the Writ Petitioners-Defendants before the learned Tribunal though they have filed their objections for the interim relief. A perusal of the order would show that the learned Tribunal has not referred to any of the objections raised by the petitioners herein but granted interim relief in favour of the respondent-Banks. It appears that the learned Tribunal has been carried away by the Report submitted by the Commissioner. It is stated before us that against this order dated 10-12-2001 the respondent-Banks herein have filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai questioning the correctness of this order and praying for enhancement of the amount to be deposited. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 10-12-2001 is not only laconic but it is the result of a total non-application of mind by the Tribunal. It is seen from the objections filed by the petitioners that they are yet to file the written statement in the main Original Application. Even though objections were filed by the petitioners herein opposing appointment of Receiver the Tribunal has not considered any of the objections and passed the order dated 10-12-2001 impugned in this Writ Petition. In our opinion, the said order dated 10-12-2001, suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. Hence the order is liable to be set aside on the ground of total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Tribunal.