Dmt 1 wp8326-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8326 OF 2011 Anup Sachanand Harchandrai .... Petitioner. versus Bank of India & Ors. .... Respondents. ..... Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Subraph Jain, Mr Yashpal Jain i/by Haresh Jagtiani & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Satish Shetye with Ms. Gaurangi Pujare i/by Little & Co. for Respondent No. 1. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 10 October 2011. P.C. : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge an order passed by the Presiding Officer of Dmt 2 wp8326-11 the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Ordinarily we would not have been inclined to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court has been informed that though there has been a vacancy in the post of the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, the Union Government has made an alternate arrangement under which the Chairperson, at Calcutta is to hold concurrent charge of the DRAT at Mumbai. The alternative remedy is, therefore, clearly available. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has, however, also pressed his submission on merits. The witness who is to depose, is based in the U.S. and it is stated by Counsel for the first Respondent that he is nearly eighty years of age. In State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai 1 the Supreme Court has allowed recording of evidence by video recording even in the case of a criminal trial. The Debt Recovery Tribunal is, under the provisions of Section 22 of the Recovery 1 (2003) 4 SCC 601 Dmt 3 wp8326-11 of Debts to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, entitled to regulate its own procedure. The mandate is only that the Tribunal must be guided by the principles of natural justice. Therefore, prima facie, no case for interference is made out on merits as well. 3. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. Since an appellate remedy is available against the order of the Tribunal and so as not to prejudice that remedy, we, however, clarify that in the event the petitioner seeks to avail of the appellate remedy against the impugned order of the Tribunal, the observations on merits made in this order shall not be regarded as a conclusive opinion of the Court. The appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal on its own merits. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)