High Court reiterates that writ petitions are not maintainable where petitioners have an alternative and equally efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in line with Radha Krishan Industries and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon; serves as binding precedent for future similar cases involving banking or debt recovery matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/23288/2025 of Motupalli Srinivasa Rao Vs Central Bank of India |
| CNR | APHC010459792025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHALLA GUNARANJAN |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR (Chief Justice), CHALLA GUNARANJAN (J) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon |
| Type of Law | Banking, Debt Recovery, Constitutional Law (Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the presence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy before DRT bars invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, invocation of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s clear position in Radha Krishan Industries and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, which emphasize judicial self-restraint in entertaining writ petitions when statutory remedies exist. The Court thus dismissed the writ petitions, granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum, i.e., the DRT. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Supreme Court’s dicta on exercise of writ jurisdiction vis-à-vis alternative statutory remedies, promoting the hierarchy and exhaustion of remedies principle. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners sought relief from the High Court under Article 226 in a matter falling within the DRT’s domain; the issue relates to bank action against borrowers. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and similar banking/debt recovery disputes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court reiterates that petitioners must exhaust remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal before approaching writ jurisdiction.
- Cites Radha Krishan Industries and Satyawati Tondon to reaffirm the principle of judicial restraint when alternative statutory remedies exist.
- Lawyers should advise clients to approach the DRT in debt recovery disputes, as writ petitions are likely to be dismissed at the threshold.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered whether extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be invoked when an alternative remedy exists.
- Cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, which set out that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where a statutory, efficacious forum like the DRT is available.
- Emphasized the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies.
- Dismissed the petitions based on this settled principle of law, while granting liberty to approach the appropriate statutory forum.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Sought relief from the High Court under Article 226 regarding action by the Central Bank of India.
Factual Background
Petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking relief in matters concerning banking action, specifically in the context of the Central Bank of India. The matter fell within the purview of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which provides a statutory remedy for such disputes.
Statutory Analysis
The Court analyzed Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was placed on the principle that such jurisdiction is not to be exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists, in this case, the statutory remedy under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established Supreme Court precedent.
Citations
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2021) 6 SCC 771]
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110]