CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited v. Indusind Bank

1. Petitioner has assailed email order dated 11.11.2025, whereby its praecipe was rejected by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal with a single line order that no early date is possible.

2. It appears that by way of order dated 16.09.2025 the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application of the present petitioner for being deleted from the array of parties. The said order dated 16.09.2025 was assailed by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, but on account of heavy workload of the Appellate Tribunal, even a preliminary hearing has not been granted to the petitioner.

3. Learned senior counsel for petitioner also contends that due to heavy workload, the Appellate Tribunal has started a system of praecipe, not sanctified by any valid rules or regulations. It is explained by learned senior counsel for petitioner that where a party is seeking an urgent relief, it has to make a request through email or personally, which is dealt with by Appellate Tribunal and answered through email. This way, the answer to praecipe cannot be treated as a judicial order, so even in case of urgency, the litigant remains not heard.

4. In the present case also, it is submitted by learned senior counsel for petitioner that the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal is proceeding with the final hearing without awaiting the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 appearing on advance intimation accepts notice and opposes the present petition. It is contended by learned counsel that the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC which was dismissed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal was filed at the stage of final arguments, so the same is not maintainable.

6. But so far as merits of the main issue is concerned, that falls beyond the scope of the present proceedings and has to be tested by the Appellate Tribunal only.

7. The fact remains that the appeal filed by the present petitioner has not been granted even a preliminary hearing by the Appellate Tribunal and if the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal continue, there would be a prejudice caused to the present petitioner.

8. It is submitted by both sides that respondent no. 1 is the only contesting respondent, so there is no need to issue notice to the remaining respondents.

9. Considering the overall circumstances, in the backdrop of settled principles of natural justice, I am of the view that the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal must await at least the preliminary hearing of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.

10. Therefore, this petition is disposed of directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to defer the final arguments till the preliminary hearing of the appeal is carried out by the Appellate Tribunal.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 14, 2025