https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200196 Under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the expressions "any order" and "an order" were construed to include interlocutory orders that substantially affect rights or liabilities, so an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal lies in that class of cases. Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998 were upheld as consistent with the Tribunal's power under Section 22 to regulate procedure, including affidavit evidence and attendance for cross-examination. The existence of an appellate remedy was treated as a discretionary factor rather than an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but extraordinary interference was declined on the facts. Cross-examination may be allowed where the procedure and circumstances justify it. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:49:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200196 Under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the expressions "any order" and "an order" were construed to include interlocutory orders that substantially affect rights or liabilities, so an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal lies in that class of cases. Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998 were upheld as consistent with the Tribunal's power under Section 22 to regulate procedure, including affidavit evidence and attendance for cross-examination. The existence of an appellate remedy was treated as a discretionary factor rather than an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but extraordinary interference was declined on the facts. Cross-examination may be allowed where the procedure and circumstances justify it. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200196