Alternative remedy objection rejected; auction irregularities required impleadment of the purchaser and fresh adjudication on merits.

A writ petition was held maintainable despite an available statutory appeal, because the alternative-remedy objection had already been rejected and could not be reopened. The Court also held that alleged irregularities in an auction sale during pendency of proceedings required adjudication on a complete record, and that the auction purchaser was a necessary party whose impleadment and amendment should have been allowed. The order rejecting review was quashed, the earlier order was reviewed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision after amendment and impleadment, with interim protection from dispossession preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the order rejecting the review application was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication in view of the alleged irregularities in the auction sale and the need to implead the auction purchaser.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The objection of alternative remedy had earlier been raised and rejected. The Court noted that the respondent did not dispute that an appeal lay under the relevant recovery statute, but held that at the present stage it was not open to resurrect the maintainability objection. The Court therefore proceeded to examine the matter on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the order rejecting the review application was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication in view of the alleged irregularities in the auction sale and the need to implead the auction purchaser.

Analysis: The Court found that the auction had taken place during the pendency of the proceedings and that the information obtained by the petitioner raised relevant questions regarding compliance with the auction requirements. It held that the Tribunal had not correctly appreciated the request for impleadment and amendment, and that the auction purchaser was a necessary party whose rights could be affected. The Court further held that the alleged irregularities required adjudication by the Tribunal itself and that the refusal to permit amendment and impleadment was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The order dated 29.11.2010 was quashed, the review application was allowed, the earlier order dated 03.01.2008 was reviewed, and the matter was sent back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal for fresh decision after amendment and impleadment of the auction purchaser.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted relief to the petitioner by removing the review-stage impediment and directing a fresh adjudication before the Tribunal, while preserving the petitioner's interim protection from dispossession.

Ratio Decidendi: Where auction-related irregularities arise during pendency of proceedings and the affected auction purchaser may be prejudiced, the adjudicatory forum should permit necessary impleadment and amendment so that the dispute is decided on a complete factual record; an alternative remedy objection cannot be reopened when already rejected and not shown to displace the Court's discretion to proceed.

---