bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2008 Krantikari Kamgar Union & anr. ... Petitioners V/s Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & ors. ... Respondents Ms.Jane Cox for the petitioners. Mr.R.D.Rasal, C.C.O. of respondent No.2 present. Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. for respondent No.5. Mr.R.A.Lokhande i/by K.J.Kandpile for respondent No.6. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH MARCH, 2008. 10TH MARCH, 2008. 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner union has impugned the order dated 11.9.2007 which rather permits the petitioner union to intervene in the matter and be heard in the Recovery Proceeding Nos.257 and 258 of 2000 which is pending before the Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Mumbai. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the observations made by the DRAT in para 3 of its order are incorrect. We make it clear that the observations do not in any manner determine the 2 rights of the parties and they are prima facie in nature and the rights are to be determined by the Presiding Officer, DRT-III before whom the matter is conducted. 4. We further make it clear that the recovery officer would not be influenced by the observations made by the appellate authority insofar as it relates to determining the rights of the parties before it. 5. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)