- (1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against interlocutory order dated 4.5.2011 (P-9) and order dated 20.5.2011 (P-11). The aforesaid orders have been passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, respectively. The matter is pending with the Debt Recovery Tribunal wherein the petitioner has raised various issues.
(2.) When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 18.8.2011, interim stay was granted and in pursuance thereof the petitioner is operating his rice mill by taking over physical possession. All that has been prayed by the counsel for the petitioner is that the status quo as it is obtaining today, may continue and the Debt Recovery Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the matter within a specified period.
(3.) Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, has stated that the physical possession of the rice mill, plant and machinery is with the petitioner although symbolic possession is of the bank. Mr. Chatrath has further stated that the security guards have been deputed by the bank.;