HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6510 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Alok Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ashwini Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the Union of India, Shri Anchal Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri G.S. Misra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitization Application No.1038 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, this petition should not be entertained. 4. In reply to the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 AIR SCW 6387 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia in the follwoing situations:- "(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Saxena, Paras Pradhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Ashish Sinha, C.S.C., Ganga Sagar Misra M/S Zenith Biomed Inc. (Partnership Firm/Borrower ) And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Financial Services New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, `within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them." 5. There is no dispute that this Court has power of superintendence over the Debts Recovery Tribunal but in the same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that :- "(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court." 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the availability of statutory remedy of appeal to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. November 11, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 6510 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench