Appealability of DRT orders and writ restraint reaffirmed where statutory appeal provides an adequate remedy.

Orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that substantially affect a party's rights or liabilities are appealable, because the expressions "any order" and "an order" under the recovery statute are wide enough to include such interlocutory orders, though not mere procedural directions. Regulations 31 and 32 of the 1998 Practice Regulations were upheld as valid: the Tribunal may proceed by affidavit and permit cross-examination only where sufficient reasons exist and it is considered necessary. Writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 was declined because an adequate statutory appeal was available and no exceptional ground such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal. (ii) Whether Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998 are invalid. (iii) Whether the writ petitions were fit for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read by considering Section 17, which confers jurisdiction on the Appellate Tribunal to entertain appeals against any order made by the Tribunal, together with Section 20, which permits an aggrieved person to prefer an appeal against an order of the Tribunal. The Court held that the expressions "any order" and "an order" are wide enough to include interlocutory orders, but not mere procedural orders that do not affect rights or liabilities. Section 21, which requires pre-deposit in appeals from debt determinations, was treated as applicable to final adjudications and not as limiting the general right of appeal under Section 20. The fee provisions in the Appellate Tribunal Rules were held to support, not negate, the maintainability of such appeals.

Conclusion: An appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Tribunal that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party.

Issue (ii): Whether Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998 are invalid.

Analysis: The Court read the Regulations with Section 22 of the Act and Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. It held that the Tribunal is to be guided by natural justice while also being free from the rigidity of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that evidence by affidavit is the normal procedure. Cross-examination is not excluded, but it arises only where sufficient reasons exist and where the Tribunal considers it necessary. Regulation 32 was understood as a enabling provision permitting cross-examination when circumstances warrant, rather than as a denial of that right.

Conclusion: Regulations 31 and 32 are valid and intra vires.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petitions were fit for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The Court held that the existence of an appellate remedy does not absolutely bar writ jurisdiction, but the remedy is ordinarily discretionary and will be withheld where the statutory remedy is adequate. Interference may still be justified in exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, challenge to vires, or a pure question of law. On the facts before it, the Court found no ground for extraordinary interference and considered the petitions better suited for the appellate forum. It nevertheless granted liberty to file appeals within six weeks without dismissal on limitation.

Conclusion: The writ petitions did not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the maintainability of appeals against orders substantially affecting rights or liabilities, sustained the impugned regulations, and declined to exercise writ interference, leaving the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the recovery statute, appellate expressions such as "any order" and "an order" extend to orders that substantially affect rights or liabilities, while the High Court's writ jurisdiction remains discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised where an adequate statutory appeal is available.

---