https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174811 Where a party had a statutory appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the High Court could not use writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside the DRT's final order in collateral proceedings. The alleged denial of cross-examination and resulting natural justice objection was a matter that could have been raised in the appeal against the final order. The existence of an effective appellate remedy meant the party could not bypass that procedure and challenge the same grievance directly before the High Court. en-us Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174811 Where a party had a statutory appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the High Court could not use writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside the DRT's final order in collateral proceedings. The alleged denial of cross-examination and resulting natural justice objection was a matter that could have been raised in the appeal against the final order. The existence of an effective appellate remedy meant the party could not bypass that procedure and challenge the same grievance directly before the High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174811