-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1936 OF 2006 Classic City Investment Pvt.Ltd...... Petitioner. Versus Ram Laxman Hotels Ltd.& Anr........ Respondents. Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr. Counsel with Ms.C.Salgaonkar-Radia for the Petitioner. Mr. Prasasd Pathare for Respondent No.1. CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 21ST MARCH, 2006. DATED : 21ST MARCH, 2006. DATED : 21ST MARCH, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: Heard. Rule. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The only question is as to whether the appropriate opportunity was given to Respondent No.1 to file and the decision arrived at by the learned Tribunal was right. It is stated at the Bar that no opportunity was given to file reply and of hearing to the parties when the impugned order dated 27th January, 2006 came to be passed. It appears that the impugned order is rendered without observing principles of natural -: 2 :- justice and as such it is liable to be set aside. 3. Petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for giving proper opportunity to file reply and hearing and deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. Rule made absolute in terms aforesaid. No order as to costs. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-