Writ jurisdiction and statutory appeal: interlocutory orders affecting substantial rights may still fall within an efficacious appellate remedy.

The statutory appellate scheme under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was read to permit appeals from "any order," including interlocutory orders that substantially affect the parties' rights and not only final orders. Because that remedy was treated as wide and effective, the writ court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where an efficacious alternative statutory appeal was available. The text thus explains that the existence of such an appellate remedy can bar writ intervention even at the interlocutory stage when substantial rights are affected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the existence of an appeal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, including against interlocutory orders affecting substantial rights, barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory scheme conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal to entertain and decide recovery applications and appeals from orders made by the Tribunal. The expression "any order" in the appellate provision was read broadly to include interlocutory orders which substantially affect the rights of the parties and not merely final orders disposing of the application. In view of this wider and effective alternative remedy, the writ court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the writ petition was ; the appeal could not succeed on the ground that an efficacious statutory appellate remedy existed.

---