Tribunal must consider scheduled property auctions when rehearing an interim relief application.

The petitioner challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal an award and sought interim relief. The Tribunal rejected the interim application by order dated 2 September 2026.

Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that auctions of the property were scheduled for 5, 9 and 14 October 2026, and that the Tribunal had not considered this urgency when declining relief.

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari quashing the Tribunal’s order.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order declining interim relief required to be set aside because it did not address the scheduled property auctions.

2. Whether the interim application should be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with a time-bound direction.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the Court granted certiorari.

The Court applied the principle that an interim application should be reconsidered where the challenged order appears not to have addressed a material contention relevant to the urgency of the requested relief.

No statute or precedent was expressly cited in the Court’s reasoning.

The Court noted that the auction dates—5, 9 and 14 October 2026—were imminent and that the petitioner had specifically raised them before the Tribunal.

Because the Tribunal’s order appeared not to address that contention, the Court considered it appropriate to quash the order and direct a fresh hearing of the interim application, rather than determine the application itself.

The writ petition was disposed of; the Court stated that notice to the other respondents was unnecessary because only a fresh decision on the application had been directed.