proceedings before the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if an order were to be passed directing that the Debts Recovery Tribunal should reconsider the application for amendment afresh. The Debts Recovery Tribunal was substantially impressed with the point that the application for inspection had already been dismissed by the Tribunal by its earlier order. There is a material change in the factual position insofar as that aspect is concerned in view of the fact that inspection of documents has since been granted. Hence, we are of the view that in the interests of fairness, the Petitioners should have an opportunity to make fresh submissions before the Tribunal on the application for amendment since the Tribunal would now have to be uninfluenced by the consideration that the earlier application for inspection had been rejected. We are therefore of the opinion that the interests of justice should warrant that the Tribunal have a fresh look at the application for amendment. We, however, make it clear that in the view which we have taken, we leave it open to the Tribunal to consider the application for amendment having due regard to all the objections which the Respondents may have including on the question of the stage at which the application has been moved. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open in that regard.
