Appeal against recovery officer's auction order is maintainable where bid acceptance and sale terms affect rights.

Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 gives any person aggrieved a right of appeal against an order of the Recovery Officer, and that remedy is not displaced by the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied under Section 29. An "order" is not limited to a final adjudication; it includes recovery-stage directions that materially and adversely affect rights, including orders accepting a bid, fixing sale terms, proclamation, valuation and upset price in auction proceedings. The availability of remedies under Rules 60 and 61 does not exclude the statutory appeal. The appeal before the Tribunal was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order passed by the Recovery Officer accepting a bid and fixing the terms of sale in auction proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is appealable under Section 30 before the Tribunal.

Analysis: Section 30 confers a right of appeal on any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under the Act, and this remedy operates notwithstanding the application of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 under Section 29. The expression "order" is not confined only to a final adjudication of lis between parties; it extends to any order passed in the course of recovery proceedings that materially and adversely affects the rights of the person aggrieved. Orders relating to auction sale, including acceptance of bid, fixation of sale terms, proclamation, valuation and upset price, may have a direct bearing on the debtor's rights and cannot be treated as merely innocuous or non-appealable. The availability of remedies under Rules 60 and 61 of the Second Schedule does not exclude the statutory appeal under Section 30.

Conclusion: The appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable, and the contrary view taken by the Appellate Tribunal was erroneous.

---