D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in O.A. Case No. 87 of 2008 dated 16th October, 2009 (Annexure1) as well as the order passed in Review Application Case No. 04 of 2009 dated 21st January, 2011 (Annexure 8) are under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) BEFORE the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner argues in detail, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondents that under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the impugned order is an appealable order. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. reported in : (2010) 8 SCC 110. In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the efficacious alternative remedy available to the Petitioner by way of an appeal under Section 20 of the Act, 1993 and also looking to the paragraph 55 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. reported in : (2010) 8 SCC 110, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition and, hence, the writ petition is dismissed because of availability of efficacious alternative remedy to the Petitioner.;