M C MITTAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners (defendants 2 to 4) seek to challenge the order of the Banking Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, dated November 28, 1995. By that order the Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioners Filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code . on the ground that the amendment sought by the petitioners was of such a nature that if permitted to be introduced by way of amendment would completely change the nature of the original defence.

(2.) The plea of the petitioners is that the order of the Tribunal is erroenous in law and the Tribunal did not appreciate the true nature of the amendment sought by the petitioners.

(3.) The question whether the order of the Tribunal was erroneous or otherwise cannot be a subject-matter of a writ petition as under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (for short 'the Act') appeal is provided from any order made or deemed to have been made by a Tribunal under the Act. Section 20 of the Act provides for an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. It is not disputed that the Appellate Tribunal has since been constituted. Therefore, the petitioners could have invoked the provisions of section 20 of the Act. Since there is an adequate alternative remedy available to the petitioners, the writ petition would not lie.