Appealability of DRT orders and tribunal cross-examination powers upheld, while writ interference remained discretionary despite an appellate remedy.

Under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the expressions "any order" and "an order" were construed to include interlocutory orders that substantially affect rights or liabilities, so an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal lies in that class of cases. Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998 were upheld as consistent with the Tribunal's power under Section 22 to regulate procedure, including affidavit evidence and attendance for cross-examination. The existence of an appellate remedy was treated as a discretionary factor rather than an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but extraordinary interference was declined on the facts. Cross-examination may be allowed where the procedure and circumstances justify it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party. (ii) Whether Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998 are valid. (iii) Whether the writ court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an appellate remedy. (iv) Whether a request for cross-examination may be entertained under the Tribunal procedure.

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

Analysis: The scheme of Sections 17, 20 and 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was read harmoniously. The expressions "any order" and "an order" were held to include not merely the final order but also an interlocutory order which substantially affects rights or liabilities. The pre-deposit requirement under Section 21 was treated as applicable to final determinations, but not as limiting the general right of appeal under Section 20.

Conclusion: An appeal lies where the Tribunal's order 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 valid.

Analysis: The procedure under Section 22 of the Act was construed as permitting the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure subject to the Act, the Rules and natural justice. Evidence by affidavit and the power to order attendance of a deponent for cross-examination were held to be consistent with the statutory scheme, and not destructive of the adjudicatory process.

Conclusion: Regulations 31 and 32 are valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy was treated as a rule of discretion and not an absolute bar. The Court recognised that writ jurisdiction may still be exercised in appropriate cases, but held that on the facts of these petitions extraordinary interference was not warranted.

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

Issue (iv): Whether a request for cross-examination may be entertained under the Tribunal procedure.

Analysis: Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 and Regulation 32 were read to mean that the Tribunal may order cross-examination where the circumstances justify it and the deponent can be produced. The power was treated as discretionary and reason-based, not automatic.

Conclusion: A cross-examination request may be entertained if the procedural requirements and circumstances warrant it.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of by upholding appealability in the stated class of cases, affirming the validity of the impugned regulations, declining writ interference on the facts, and leaving the petitioners free to pursue an appeal within the time granted by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Act, an appeal is maintainable against an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that substantially affects rights or liabilities, while the Tribunal may regulate evidence by affidavit and permit cross-examination where warranted, and writ jurisdiction remains discretionary despite an alternative remedy.

---