Article 227 supervisory review cannot ordinarily be used to challenge an interlocutory Debt Recovery Tribunal order refusing document production.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited, so a petition challenging only an interlocutory Debt Recovery Tribunal order refusing production of documents was not maintainable. The High Court noted that such interlocutory orders are not ordinarily entertained in supervisory review, and the petitioner's contribution to delay in the appellate process further weakened the challenge. The statutory expectation of expeditious disposal under Section 20(6) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 did not assist on these facts, and the petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The petition challenged only an interlocutory order refusing production of documents in pending recovery proceedings. The scope of interference under Article 227 is limited, and an interlocutory order of this nature is not ordinarily to be entertained in supervisory jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the petitioner had contributed to the delay in the appellate proceedings and that the statutory expectation of expeditious disposal under Section 20(6) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 did not assist the petitioner in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for interference against the interlocutory order and was rejected on merits.

---