( 1 ) THIS instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No. II in Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2003 arising out of T. A. No. 309 of 1995, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the learned Receiver to restore the possession of Premises Nos. 72/2 and 72/4 Shambhu Nath Pandit St. to the opposite party Sri Kamal chowdhury within a period of 48 hours from the date of the receipt of the order. ( 2 ) CHALLENGING the authority of the Tribunal to pass an order for restoration of possession, Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that in granting such order, the learned Tribunal had exceeded its power and jurisdiction. Referring to the provision of Section 17 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is submitted that the jurisdiction of the DRT is confined in and limited to recovery of debt of the bank only. The debt of the bank having been recovered and realized on 30. 06. 06, the DRT had no authority and jurisdiction to pass an order of restoration on 18th July, 2006. The DRT having been made functus officio on and from 10th June, 2006, the usurpation of jurisdiction on 18th July, 2006 was totally illegal. It was not within the scope and ambit of the Debt recovery Tribunal either. ( 3 ) CHALLENGING the authority of the opposite party No. 2 to claim restoration of possession of the tenanted premises, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that the learned Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the case for recovery of the debt was filed against principal debtor M/s. Sterling pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. with opposite party No. 2 mr. Kamal Chowdhury figuring as one of the respondents. It is contended that the tenancy of the premises stood in the name of the firm - a fact which was even acknowledged by the opposite party No. 2 in his application under Order 39, Rule 4 C. P. C. filed by the opposite party No. 2 in Title Suit no. 102 of 2006. The symbolic possession of the premises having been obtained from M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. , the learned Tribunal ought to have directed restoration of the property in favour of the M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. products only. 102 of 2006. The symbolic possession of the premises having been obtained from M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. , the learned Tribunal ought to have directed restoration of the property in favour of the M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. products only. ( 4 ) REFERRING to the Form 32 relating to the resignation of the opposite party No. 2 from the post of Director, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that with the resignation of opposite party No. 2 from the Board of Director, he had no authority to represent the company. Suppressing the fact of resignation from the company and the order of injunction issued by the trial Court, the opposite party No. 2 Mr. Kamal Chowdhury, it is contended, moved the Tribunal after the disposal of the case and obtained an illegal order of restoration of possession in his favour. Mr. Sanjoy Rungta, Rohit rungta and Abhishek Dhariwal having been made Directors of the company to the knowledge of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 herein, the directors so appointed by the company were only entitled to seek for restoration of possession of the premises where the registered company is housed from the learned Receiver. ( 5 ) DRAWING the attention of the Court to the order-sheet dated 30. 06. 06, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that the suit for recovery of loan registered as M. A. /21/2003 was finally disposed of on compromise with the Tribunal directing handing over possession of the properties to the Certificate Debtors within a period of 48 hours from the date of receipt of such order. M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. having figured as one of the Certificate Debtors, the Tribunal afterwards should not have passed an order for restoration of possession of the premises to opposite party No. 2 only. Such order was issued on the application filed by the erstwhile Director Mr. Kamal Chowdhury without intimating the petitioner. An erroneous order of restoration was issued, keeping the petitioner in the dark. The principle of natural justice not having been followed, the order of restoration dated 18th July, 2006 is liable to be set aside on that score alone, as urged by Mr. Roychowdhury. ( 6 ) COMMENTING on the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. The principle of natural justice not having been followed, the order of restoration dated 18th July, 2006 is liable to be set aside on that score alone, as urged by Mr. Roychowdhury. ( 6 ) COMMENTING on the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that the apex Court has time and again underlined the proposition that provision of alternative remedy would not always operate as a bar in certain contingency. Referring to the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. , reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 , it is argued that the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights ; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice ; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. ( 7 ) DISCOUNTING the claim that the opposite party No. 2 Kamal chowdhury enjoyed the maximum numbers of share in the concern and payment was made by him to liquidate the outstanding, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that Mr. Kamal Chowdhury had only 1/20 shares which was less than even 25% of the total shares. The bulk of the shares, as contended by Mr. Roychowdhury, are owned by the present Directors. So long Mr. Chowdhury was in the concern, he made payments on behalf of the company to liquidate the outstanding. In such State of affairs, the restoration of possession in favour of Mr. Chowdhury was totally uncalled for, as contended by Mr. Roychowdhury. ( 8 ) APPEARING on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Saktinath Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel, has challenged the maintainability of the revisional application. It is submitted that the order directing the Receiver to restore the premises to Mr. Kamal Chowdhury with a direction to the police authorities to render all assistance to effect the restoration cannot be interfered with in revision in view of the availability of alternative remedy under Section 20 of the DRT. Referring to the case of Punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan and Ors. Kamal Chowdhury with a direction to the police authorities to render all assistance to effect the restoration cannot be interfered with in revision in view of the availability of alternative remedy under Section 20 of the DRT. Referring to the case of Punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan and Ors. , reported in AIR 2001 sc 3208 , it is argued that when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. There being an alternative forum for redressal of the grievance, recourse to intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be discouraged. ( 9 ) CHALLENGING the authority of Mr. Rohit Rungta to act as the Director of M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Mukherji has argued that under articles of the company, a person holding two ordinary shares cannot continue be a Director for more than two months. Both mr. Rungta and Mr. Dhariwal having ceased to be shareholders, they cannot represent the company in any way. Furthermore, under Article 87 of the company Act, at least three Directors are required to make the Board of directors functional. The Board of Directors not having been formed, mr. Rungta and Mr. Dhariwal would not have any authority to act on behalf of the company. ( 10 ) COMMENTING on the alleged resignation of Mr. Kamal Chowdhury from the company, Mr. Mukherji has submitted that it is unbelievable that a guarantor pledging his valuable shares and playing a stellar role in getting the loan liquidated would disengage himself from activities of the company without even receiving the consequential benefits. It is contended that it was unlikely for Mr. Chowdhury to hand over the management of the company to strangers like Mr. Rungta and Mr. Dhariwal when his properties were at stake. Drawing the attention of the Court to the order dated 08. 02. 04, Mr. Mukherji has submitted that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 actually entered effected a compromise with the bank, as their properties had been pledged. The Tribunal also recorded the fact that the Certificate holder Bank and the Certificate Debtors 2 and 3, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 herein had entered into a compromise and settled the entire outstanding claim of Rs. 12 lakhs. Since the shares of the opposite party nos. The Tribunal also recorded the fact that the Certificate holder Bank and the Certificate Debtors 2 and 3, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 herein had entered into a compromise and settled the entire outstanding claim of Rs. 12 lakhs. Since the shares of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had been pledged, steps were taken by them to have the shares released. Mr. Kamal Chowdhury having served in the duel capacity as the manager of the company as well as the guarantor, he and his wife took the initiative to get the dispute settled through amicable settlement. Since their interests were only involved, payment had to be made by them from their own source. Full payments having been made by the guarantor, the opposite parties were also entitled to be benefit of subrogation under sections 91 and 92 of the Transfer and Properties Act, as argued by mr. Mukherji. ( 11 ) COMMENTING on the infringement of the principle of natural justice. Mr. Mukherji has submitted that since Mr. Dhariwal and Mr. Rungta had no authority to act as Director of M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals products Co. Pvt. Ltd. and as such the Tribunal did not find necessity of serving notice upon them. On the other hand, the alleged resignation of mr. Kamal Chowdhury not having been accepted by the Board of Directors, he continued to represent an act on behalf. of the company as its Managing director. The interest of the company was looked after by him althrough the proceeding before the Tribunal. It was his share and properties that were pledged with the bank. Judging these aspects, the Tribunal rightly directed restoration of the possession in favour of Mr. Kamal Chowdhury, as contended by Mr. Mukherji. ( 12 ) AS revealed from the record, UBI instituted a Title Suit No. 105 of 1989 against the petitioner M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. with the opposite party No. 2 Mr. Kamal Chowdhury and opposite party No. 3 Ratna Chowdhury being made defendants in view of their roles as guarantors for payment of the money. Following transfer of the case to Debt Recovery Tribunal, it was renumbered as T. A. No. 309 of 1995. In the midst of proceeding, a Receiver was appointed for taking possession of the premises at 72/2 and 72/4 Shambhu Nath Pandit Street. Following transfer of the case to Debt Recovery Tribunal, it was renumbered as T. A. No. 309 of 1995. In the midst of proceeding, a Receiver was appointed for taking possession of the premises at 72/2 and 72/4 Shambhu Nath Pandit Street. Following prolonged negotiation, the bank agreed to accept 12 lakhs in instalments in full settlement of its claim. Payments were made to clear the entire dues in terms of the order dated 16th June, 2004 passed by drt. Ultimately, there was dispute as to the payment of interest. Eventually, the bank agreed to accept 42647 in full and final settlement of its dues. The matter was disposed of vide Order dated 30th June, 2006 with the tribunal directing that four Certificate Debtors-cum-Appellants stood discharged from their debt liability. The Tribunal also directed the learned receiver to hand over possession of the properties to the Certificate debtors within a period of 48 hours from the date of receipt of such order. The petitioner M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. was one of the Certificate Debtors, as indicated in the record itself. The suit for recovery of the dues was also filed against the petitioner M/s. Sterling pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. Admittedly, the opposite party No. 2 mr. Kamal Chowdhury was one of the Certificate Debtors in the proceeding. It stood as guarantor along with his wife, pledging his shares. He also functioned as the Managing Director of the concern at least upto 30. 06. 06. It was not a proprietorship firm with the entire shares being held by mr. Kamal Chowdhury and his wife. The suit was primarily against the petitioner M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. There are prima facie indications that the tenancy of the premises was taken in the name of M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. There was no denying the fact that Mr. Kamal Chowdhury did have some say in the matter of distribution of properties in view of his being made one of his secured debtors. The Tribunal vide earlier orders directed restoration of the properties to the secured debtors and not in favour of a particular secured debtors. Shockingly enough, vide order dated 18. 07. 06, the tribunal without hearing the petitioner M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals products Co. The Tribunal vide earlier orders directed restoration of the properties to the secured debtors and not in favour of a particular secured debtors. Shockingly enough, vide order dated 18. 07. 06, the tribunal without hearing the petitioner M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals products Co. Pvt. Ltd. directed the learned Receiver to hand over possession of the premises situated at 72/2 and 72/4 Shambhu Nath Pandit street in favour of opposite party No. 2 alone within 48 hours of the receipt of the order of the Tribunal. Direction was also given to the Local Police station and Deputy Commissioner of Police to render and provide adequate police assistance to the learned Receiver in effecting handing over the possession of the two premises of the opposite party No. 2 Mr. Kamal chowdhury. Since the petitioner was one of the secured debtors and the tenancy was apparently taken in its name, restoration of possession in favour of opposite party No. 2 Kamal Chowdhury without hearing the petitioner was totally unwarranted. ( 13 ) IN view of considerable difficulties in recovering loans and enforcement of securities charged with them, the Debt Recovery Tribunals have been formed. Mechanism has been worked out through which the dues to the banks and financial institutions are to be realized. The primary job, no doubt, is to realize the dues of the banks and financial institutions. In doing so, the securities are often taken charge of. In some cases receivers are appointed to ensure preservation and protection of the properties of the debtors. With the disposal of the proceedings and realization of the dues in full and final satisfaction, the Tribunal is required to pass order regarding release of the securities and restoration of hypothecated immovable or movable properties in favour of the persons so entitled to. Thus, it cannot be said that the Tribunal in all cases becomes functus off/do after the disposal of the main application. It is required to pass appropriate order for release of the movable as well as immovable properties. I do not subscribe to the view of Mr. Roychowdhury that the order regarding disposal of the properties held as securities is beyond the scope and purview of the Tribunal. ( 14 ) A person aggrieved by an order may prefer an appeal to an appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. I do not subscribe to the view of Mr. Roychowdhury that the order regarding disposal of the properties held as securities is beyond the scope and purview of the Tribunal. ( 14 ) A person aggrieved by an order may prefer an appeal to an appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. Normally, when there is an alternative remedy available, the revisional jurisdiction should not have invoked. However, as highlighted by the Apex Court in Whirlpool corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. , reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 (supra), the provision of alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights ; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice ; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In the instant case, the order of restoration in favour of a person was issued without intimating the principal creditor and the concern in whose name, the tenancy was created. The vital interest of the petitioner was affected. The order was issued without affording any semblance of opportunity to the petitioner. The principle of natural justice had thus been violated by the ex-parte order regarding restoration of possession in faovur of a particular person. The impugned order, thus, calls for interference in revision. ( 15 ) BEFORE concluding, I would like to make it clear that this Court has not gone into the question as to whether the resignation of Mr. Kamal chowdhury had been lawfully secured or whether some other persons had been lawfully appointed as Directors of the concern. These are the issues to be decided by the appropriate stages. Right now, the Tribunal should decide in what efficacious way the restoration of the premises is to be done. ( 16 ) IN the result, the revisional application is allowed, setting aside the order dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No. II in Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2003 arising out of T. A. No. 309 of 1995. The learned Tribunal is to pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioners herein as well as the opposite parties for the purpose of disposal of the application for restoration of the possession of Premises Nos. Appeal No. 21 of 2003 arising out of T. A. No. 309 of 1995. The learned Tribunal is to pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioners herein as well as the opposite parties for the purpose of disposal of the application for restoration of the possession of Premises Nos. 72/2 and 72/4 Shambhu Nath Pandit Street.