Statutory appeal under the recovery law bars High Court supervisory intervention when an effective remedy is available.

The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provides a special, self-contained recovery mechanism with an appellate remedy under Section 20. Where an effective statutory appeal is available against an order directing sale of mortgaged property, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The challenge must be pursued before the forum created by the Act, rather than through a petition under Article 227.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court ought to have entertained a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provided an alternative statutory appeal under Section 20 against the Tribunal's order directing sale of mortgaged property.

Analysis: The Act creates a special, self-contained procedure for recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions and provides a hierarchy of remedies, including an appeal under Section 20. Where such an effective statutory remedy is available, judicial prudence requires the High Court to decline intervention under Articles 226 and 227. The order directing sale of mortgaged property was appealable, and the respondent was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking supervisory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227, and the challenge ought to have been pursued before the forum provided under the Act.

---