The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that when concluded bank sales are challenged and involve factual disputes, the writ Court will refrain from adjudication, directing parties to the appropriate alternative forums. This clarifies and upholds the established limits of writ jurisdiction, maintaining its precedential authority for future cases involving similar factual contours within the banking sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/24167/2023 of SMT. CHANDANA CHOUDHURY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0497042023 |
| Date of Registration | 05-10-2023 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Constitutional / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether the writ Court can adjudicate factual disputes concerning the validity of a bank’s sale concluded via sale certificate. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ Court declined to adjudicate the petition challenging a bank sale already concluded with a sale certificate on the grounds that the matter involved complex factual disputes. The Court reaffirmed that such questions fall outside writ jurisdiction, reiterating that parties may seek recourse to the appropriate alternative forums as provided by law. The decision reinforces prior precedent concerning the limited scope of the writ Court in adjudicating fact-intensive disputes, especially where alternative remedies exist. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court applied the established principle limiting writ jurisdiction in cases where resolution of disputed facts is required, especially when an adequate alternative forum is available. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged a sale conducted by a bank in 2019. Several factual disputes were identified, and the Court noted that the sale had been completed with the issuance of a sale certificate. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts and authorities within the Calcutta High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts addressing writ petitions involving factual disputes in bank sale matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ Courts will decline jurisdiction in matters involving complex factual disputes, particularly in cases involving concluded bank sales.
- Clarifies the remedy: Aggrieved parties must approach the appropriate alternative forum for fact-finding and relief.
- Emphasises the limited scope of writ jurisdiction, serving as an authority for respondents in similar factual scenarios.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the presence of several factual issues crucial to the determination of the dispute regarding the bank-conducted sale.
- Recognising that the sale had already been concluded and a sale certificate issued, the Court held that such factual disputes cannot be examined within the writ jurisdiction.
- The Court opted not to exercise writ jurisdiction and instead directed the petitioner to the appropriate alternative forum, thereby prioritising procedural propriety and established limitations on writ powers.
- The Court applied the established principle that writ jurisdiction is not meant for adjudicating matters requiring resolution of disputed facts, especially when an adequate alternative remedy exists.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought relief challenging a sale conducted by a bank dating back to 2019.
- Filed an affidavit in reply.
Respondent Bank and Private Respondents
- Contested the maintainability of the writ petition, implying the presence of disputed facts and the completed nature of the sale.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged a sale carried out by a bank, which concluded in 2019 with the issuance of a sale certificate. During the hearing, several factual disputes became apparent. The challenge was addressed in the writ petition, seeking relief before the Calcutta High Court.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment turns on principles governing writ jurisdiction under the Constitution. The Court elucidated that disputed questions of fact, particularly in the context of a concluded sale (with a sale certificate issued), lie beyond the powers of the writ Court and require recourse to the remedies provided by statute before appropriate forums.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court followed the established precedent that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for adjudication of disputed facts, especially where a concluded sale and adequate alternative remedies exist.