Statutory appeal bars writ challenge to DRT order where natural justice objection could be raised in appeal.

Where a party had a statutory appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the High Court could not use writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside the DRT's final order in collateral proceedings. The alleged denial of cross-examination and resulting natural justice objection was a matter that could have been raised in the appeal against the final order. The existence of an effective appellate remedy meant the party could not bypass that procedure and challenge the same grievance directly before the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the DRT's final order in a collateral proceeding when the respondent had an appellate remedy under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The respondent's grievance was that cross-examination of the deponent had been refused, resulting in an alleged breach of natural justice. That objection could have been raised in an appeal against the final order passed by the DRT. The availability of a statutory appeal meant that the respondent could not bypass that remedy and directly approach the High Court in collateral proceedings to challenge the final order on the same ground.

Conclusion: The invocation of writ jurisdiction was unjustified, and the challenge ought to have been pursued by appeal under Section 20 of the Act.

---