Tribunal interim injunction powers under the Act are broad and not limited to enumerated restraints; High Court interference failed.

The Debts Recovery Tribunal has broad procedural autonomy under the Act and Rules, guided by natural justice, and its power to grant interim relief is not confined to the specific forms of restraint listed in section 19(6). Section 19(6) is enabling rather than exhaustive, and Rule 18 supports orders and directions necessary to give effect to the Tribunal's process and secure the ends of justice. On that basis, the Tribunal could issue the interim injunction granted after notice was refused to the opposite side, and the High Court's interference under article 227 was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal had power under the Act and the Rules to grant an interim injunction of a type not specifically enumerated in section 19(6), and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Tribunal's order under article 227.

Analysis: Section 22(1) confers wide procedural autonomy on the Tribunal, subject to the Act and the Rules and guided by the principles of natural justice. Section 19(6) is enabling in character and identifies certain kinds of interim restraint orders, but does not exhaust the Tribunal's power to issue interim injunctions or stay orders. Rule 18 further authorises orders and directions necessary to give effect to the Tribunal's process and to secure the ends of justice. Since notice had been refused by the opposite side, the Tribunal proceeded consistently with natural justice before granting the interim restraint.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the impugned interim injunction order, and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. The order setting aside the Tribunal's injunction could not be sustained.

---