S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—In this case, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 7.8.2012 whereby the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore has dismissed the application filed by the legal representative of defendant No. 2 seeking a direction to the applicant-Bank to settle the case in terms of the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. I have heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.

2. Admittedly, the order impugned is appealable under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. I am of the view that the matter requires factual adjudication. The alternative remedy available to the petitioner is not only adequate but also efficacious in nature.

3. In AIR 2010 SC 3413 , the Apex Court has held that ordinarily the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of Banks and other financial instit