Tribunals Must Consider Imminent Auction Submissions When Deciding Interim Relief

The petitioner challenged an award before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and sought interim relief. The KAT rejected the interim application by order dated 23 September 2026.

Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had not considered that the property was scheduled for auction on 9 October 2026, despite having been informed that Form No. 8 had been issued and the auction was scheduled

The High Court heard the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Whether the KAT’s order rejecting interim relief should be set aside because it did not address the petitioner’s submissions concerning the scheduled property auction

Whether the interim application should be remitted to the KAT for fresh consideration

The Court acted under its writ jurisdiction, including the power to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226, and its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227

Its decision rests on the case-specific principle that an interim application should be reconsidered where the impugned order appears not to have addressed a material contention placed before the Tribunal

The Court noted that the appeal before the KAT challenged an award and that interim relief had been sought. The petitioner specifically asserted that the property auction was scheduled for 9 October 2026.

On reviewing the record, the Court found that the KAT’s order appeared not to address the auction-related submissions

Rather than determine the merits of the interim application itself, the Court set aside the order and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application, taking account of the parties’ contentions

The writ petition was disposed of; the Court made no determination on the merits of the interim relief sought