Tribunals must urgently hear interim applications alleging threatened dispossession.

The petitioners challenged the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai’s dismissal of their S.A. challenging a sale certificate.

They appealed to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, which was in charge of the Chennai DRAT while its Presiding Officer was on leave.

Along with the appeal, they sought waiver, an urgent hearing and interim relief.

The DRAT rejected their request for an urgent hearing, reasoning that the appeal arose from the dismissal of a challenge to the sale certificate.

The petitioners then invoked Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge that rejection and sought urgent consideration of their interim applications, citing a threat of dispossession.

1. Whether the DRAT’s rejection of the petitioners’ request for an urgent hearing was liable to be set aside, given their stated apprehension of dispossession.

2. Whether the DRAT should be directed to consider the petitioners’ interim application on its merits.

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, which provides for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals.

The Court’s stated approach was that the merits of a request for interim relief are for the DRAT to determine on the application before it; where an applicant alleges a threat of dispossession, the tribunal should afford an urgent hearing and consider the application on its merits, without the High Court prejudging the outcome.

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act arose in the parties’ submissions concerning the possession warrant, but the Court did not rely on it to decide the revision.

The Court confined its review to the refusal of an urgent hearing and did not address the merits of the appeal or the petitioners’ entitlement to interim relief.

It found the DRAT’s stated reason—that the appeal concerned dismissal of a challenge to a sale certificate—insufficient to dispose of the urgency request.

In light of the petitioners’ stated apprehension of dispossession, the DRAT should permit the appeal to proceed subject to consideration of the waiver application and determine the interim application on its merits.

The Court left those determinations to the DRAT and expressed no view on their outcome.

It directed the DRAT to consider the petitioners’ application on its merits after affording an urgent hearing, and stated that the tribunal should take up the proceedings promptly upon the petitioners’ request accompanied by a copy of the order.

The revision petition was disposed of without an order as to costs; the interim applications were closed.