https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109536 The Debts Recovery Tribunal was treated as subordinate to the High Court, but that status alone did not attract revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Because Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provided a broad appeal remedy against Tribunal orders, civil revision was held to be excluded. The special statutory appellate scheme displaced recourse to Section 115, even though supervisory control under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution remained available. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:46:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109536 The Debts Recovery Tribunal was treated as subordinate to the High Court, but that status alone did not attract revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Because Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provided a broad appeal remedy against Tribunal orders, civil revision was held to be excluded. The special statutory appellate scheme displaced recourse to Section 115, even though supervisory control under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution remained available. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109536