Effective statutory appeal bars writ interference with Tribunal orders, requiring parties to use the appellate remedy first.

Where an effective statutory appeal is available against a Tribunal order, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised to bypass that remedy. The Court reiterated that the appellate mechanism under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provided the proper course, so the writ petition should not have been entertained. The order of the single Judge was therefore liable to be set aside, and the parties were required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should have been entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: Section 20 of the Act provides a specific appellate mechanism against orders of the Tribunal, and the Court reiterated that when such a statutory remedy exists, the aggrieved party must ordinarily pursue it. The availability of writ jurisdiction does not displace the settled rule of judicial restraint where an effective alternative remedy is provided. Relying on the governing principle that writ courts should normally decline interference in the face of a statutory appeal, the Court held that the Tribunal's order could not be bypassed by resort to constitutional writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the order of the learned single Judge was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the respondents were required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the Act rather than invoke writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised to challenge the Tribunal's order.

---