Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, CJ.—Petitioner challenges vires of Rule 6(a) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). 2. According to the petitioner, first petitioner has its business and registered office at Kottayam, in the State of Kerala. It has obtained financial assistance from second respondent from its Branch at Kerala. The second respondent has sought to initiate proceedings against first petitioner before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under the garb of impugned Rule, which according to the petitioner, is completely unconstitutional and ultra-vires. 3. It appears that second respondent filed Original Application No. 34 of 2008 before Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad, wherein petitioner raised preliminary objection of maintainability of the application. Debt Recovery Tribuna-I, Ahmedabad returned the Original Application to second respondent by an order dated 2.2.2009, which on challenge was reversed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, without notice to the petitioner. 4. According to the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Bank, under Rule 6(a) of the Rules, the Bank or financial institution can file an application before the forum where the Bank is functioning. According to the counsel, as the Head Office of the Bank is situated at Baroda within the State of Gujarat, the Original Application was rightly preferred before Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Ahmedabad. 5. Per contra, according to the counsel for the petitioner, first petitioner having obtained loan from respondent Bank from its Kerala Branch, no cause of action arises within the local limits of Ahmedabad, and as defendant – petitioner do not reside within the State of Gujarat, application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the DRT Act”) preferred by the Bank was not maintainable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad. 6. In the present case, as neither of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad, nor the order passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai is under challenge, we are not inclined to deliberate the issue whether the application preferred by respondent Bank is maintainable or not, which can be raised before appropriate forum or before the Court having competent jurisdiction. 7. 7. In the present case, the only question raised is relating to validity of Rule 6(a) of the Rules, which provides for jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and according to the petitioner, Rule 6(a) is ultra-vires and runs contrary to Section 19 of DRT Act. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 19 of the DRT Act provides that a Bank or financial institution, which has to recover its debt, has to move an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant-petitioner resides or where cause of action arises wholly or in part. However, Rule 6 provides that an application can be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the applicant is functioning as a banker or financial institution. That the impugned Rule provides an un-channelized and unrestricted power, contrary to Section 19 of the Parent Act. Thus, the impugned Rule is without any authority of law and liable to be held ultra-vires. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. Section 19 of the DRT Act deals with application to the Tribunal and it allows the Bank or financial institution to recover any debt from any person. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the DRT Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been prescribed, as quoted hereunder:— “Section 19 (1) - Where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction— (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” 10. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rule, 1993 has been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 36 of the DRT Act. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 36, the Central Government may, by notification, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act to provide for all or any of the matters mentioned under Sub-section (2) therein. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 36, the Central Government may, by notification, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act to provide for all or any of the matters mentioned under Sub-section (2) therein. Apart from the salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairpersons, the Presiding Officers, Recovery Officers and other officers and employees of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, Rule can be framed prescribing the form in which an appeal can be filed before the Appellate Tribunal. No rule can be framed under Section 36 of the Act in contravention of the substantive provisions of the DRT Act, including Section 19. Therefore, Rule 6(a) has to be read in harmony with Section 19 of the DRT Act. Under the procedural Rule 6, application to be filed by the applicant Bank or financial institution with the Registrar within whose jurisdiction the applicant is functioning as a Bank or financial institution of the defendant or each of the defendants are residing or carries on business. Said Rule 6, reads as follows:— “Rule 6. Place of filing application.—The application shall be filed by the applicant with the Registrar within whose jurisdiction— (a) the applicant is functioning as a bank or financial institution, as the case may be, for the time being, or (b) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making application, actually or voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or (c) any of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or (d) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” 11. It will be evident that the aforesaid Rule 6(b), (c) and (d) is in consonance with Section 19 of the DRT Act. It is only to be determined whether Rule 6(a) is in contravention of Section 19 of the DRT Act. 12. It has already been noticed that under Section 19(1), the application can be made before the Tribunal within the local limits under whose jurisdiction the defendant or each defendants are residing or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. 12. It has already been noticed that under Section 19(1), the application can be made before the Tribunal within the local limits under whose jurisdiction the defendant or each defendants are residing or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Therefore, under Rule 6(a) of the Rules, the Bank or financial institution has to file application before the Registrar of the Tribunal, where such Bank or financial institution is functioning and either one or more defendant resides or carries on business and/or cause of action wholly or in part arises. Therefore, functioning of a Bank or financial institution as mentioned in Rule 6(a) relates to the place where the cause of action wholly or in part arises and not any other place. No Bank or financial institution can file an application before any Tribunal, where defendant is not residing or not carrying on business or cause of action wholly or in part has not arisen. Any contrary interpretation of Rule 6(a) will otherwise render the same ultra-vires Section 19 of the DRT Act. 13. We accordingly, while upholding validity of Rule 6(a) of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rule, 1993, allow the petitioner to raise its grievance against the order, if any, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal before the appropriate forum/Court of law. 14. This writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. There shall be no order as to costs.