1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.311 OF 2010 Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. .. Petitioners Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.J.J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vaibhav Joglekar i/b Mr.Avinash Singh Gautama for the petitioners Ms.Jaymala Raut i/b M/s.Juris Consultus for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.Anil Patel for respondent no.3 Mr.Raja Rustom Bhura for respondent nos.4 and 6 CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ DATE : 11th FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. : 1. It is submitted that the petitioners are required to move the court urgently as the learned DRT-II, Mumbai having passed the order on 8.2.10 directed that it would proceed with the hearing. It is submitted by the petitioners that he has applied to the DRT for being transposed as one of the defendants in O.A. No.224 of 2002 which has been rejected on a totally erroneous approach. 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that he ought to have moved the DRAT in the matter but as the DRT insisted upon proceeding with the case which would cause irreparable loss to the petitioners, they have invoked the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are prepared to move the DRAT in the matter. 3. This court extends a limited protection to the parties in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be granted 4 weeks time to file a appeal before the DRAT or within a statutory period, whichever is earlier and seeks the remedy available to him under the law. In the meantime, this court may direct DRT to adjourn the proceedings for the period of 4 weeks. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in so far as granting of time to the petitioners is concerned so as to enable the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the DRAT and therefore, we dispose of this petition with a request to the DRT not to proceed with the matter for a period of 4 weeks to enable the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the DRAT against order dt.8.2.10 passed by the DRT-II, Mumbai. 3 5. We make it clear that this order passed by the court should not be considered as a precedent in other matters arising out of DRT. Needless to state that all issues and contentions raised in the petition are left open, as this court has not dealt on the merits of the matter. 6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 7. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. ( J. N. Patel, J) ( C. L. Pangarkar, J)