https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108057 Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited, so a petition challenging only an interlocutory Debt Recovery Tribunal order refusing production of documents was not maintainable. The High Court noted that such interlocutory orders are not ordinarily entertained in supervisory review, and the petitioner's contribution to delay in the appellate process further weakened the challenge. The statutory expectation of expeditious disposal under Section 20(6) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 did not assist on these facts, and the petition was rejected. en-us Mon, 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:32:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108057 Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited, so a petition challenging only an interlocutory Debt Recovery Tribunal order refusing production of documents was not maintainable. The High Court noted that such interlocutory orders are not ordinarily entertained in supervisory review, and the petitioner's contribution to delay in the appellate process further weakened the challenge. The statutory expectation of expeditious disposal under Section 20(6) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 did not assist on these facts, and the petition was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108057