- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Pathak, learned for the respondents/Bank.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the order impugned dated 28.10.2016 passed by the respondent No.6 is clearly appealable in terms of Section 98 (1) (e) and therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not an order in exercise of powers of the nature as defined under Section 35 or based on the ingredients thereof, and to the contrary, it is an order reproducing the directives of the Reserve Bank of India, as such, the order cannot be read to be an order under Section 35 so as to make it appealable under Section 98(1)(e).;