THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.438 of 2025 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. During the course of hearing, learned Senior counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad, the appellants’ appeal is admittedly pending before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (for short, ‘ the appellate Tribunal’). However, the appellate Tribunal needs to hear the appellants on the question of waiver of deposit. Till such time the said question is decided and the appellants’ interim prayer is considered by the appellate Tribunal, the appellants may be protected. He further submits that the appellants will forthwith file applications for stay and preponement of the appeal before the appellate Tribunal and till such time the said applications are decided, the appellants may be protected.

3. In our opinion, learned Single Judge declined interference in W.P.No.10600 of 2025 on the basis of a recent judgment of Supreme Court in Phr Invent Educational Society v. Uco Bank, {(2024) 4 S.C.R. 541. If the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is tested on the envil of principles laid down in Phr Invent Educational Society (supra), we are inclined to observe that the learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view. Thus, no interference is warranted. The appellants’ appeal is admittedly pending consideration before the appellate Tribunal. The appellants will be at liberty to file stay application and application for preponement of the appeal before the appellate Tribunal. So far, question of grant of interim relief for interregnum period is concerned, the curtains are finally drawn on this aspect by the Supreme Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437 wherein, in paragraph No.22, the Supreme Court has opined as under:-

“22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for

an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12] , Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC 1305] , State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev [AIR 1964 SC 685] , State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh “Balak” [AIR 1966 SC 1441 : 1966 Cri LJ 1076] and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 70 : AIR 1975 SC 2238].)”

In this view of the matter, no interim relief is due to the appellants.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of by reserving liberty to the appellants to file appropriate applications for stay and preponement of the appeal before the appellate Tribunal. We have no doubt that if such applications are filed, the appellate Tribunal will consider the same in accordance with law. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ ____________________

RENUKA YARA, J Date: 21.04.2025 Myk/Tsr THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.438 of 2025 (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Date: 21.04.2025 myk/tsr