High Courts will generally refuse to exercise Article 226 writ jurisdiction in banking matters where an alternative efficacious remedy (such as a Debts Recovery Tribunal) exists; this position is reaffirmed by express reliance on Supreme Court judgments in Radha Krishan Industries (2021) and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010); the case serves as binding precedent within its jurisdiction for future similar disputes involving bank loan recovery and related actions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/23264/2025 of MUVVA VENKATA RAO Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA |
| CNR | APHC010458752025 |
| 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, CJ & CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Andhra Pradesh High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Radha Krishan Industries, Satyawati Tondon) |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law (Article 226), Banking Law, Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked when there exists an equally efficacious alternative remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reaffirmed that when an alternate efficacious statutory remedy is available (in this case, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal), the High Court should ordinarily not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment relies on the binding ratio of Radha Krishan Industries (2021) 6 SCC 771 and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, both holding that writ jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly when alternative remedies exist. The court further clarified that petitioners retain liberty to approach the appropriate alternate forum. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents setting out the law on alternative efficacious remedy and limitations on Article 226 scope. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners sought writ remedies in banking/loan matters against Central Bank of India, though an alternate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was available. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potential benchmark for similar cases nationally |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms strict application of the alternative remedy rule in writ petitions against banks.
- Explicitly cites latest Supreme Court precedents to clarify why High Courts will not entertain writs where Debts Recovery Tribunal jurisdiction exists.
- Lawyers should assess available statutory remedies before filing under Article 226 in banking/financial disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered whether its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised when statutory alternative remedies are available.
- Cited and relied upon Supreme Court cases: Radha Krishan Industries (2021) 6 SCC 771, and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110.
- Both Supreme Court decisions emphasize that the existence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy (here, the Debts Recovery Tribunal) militates against invoking writ jurisdiction except in rare cases.
- The court reiterated its reluctance to bypass the statutory remedy and dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to approach the tribunal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against Central Bank of India in a banking/loan dispute.
(Arguments from Respondent or other parties not recorded in the judgment.)
Factual Background
The petitioners initiated writ proceedings against Central Bank of India relating to a banking/loan dispute. The High Court noted that an alternative, equally efficacious remedy existed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, making the invocation of Article 226 inappropriate in this case.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The High Court’s extraordinary writ powers.
- The court interpreted the scope of Article 226 narrowly in view of the statutory alternative remedy provided under banking law, as laid down in Supreme Court precedent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment follows and affirms established Supreme Court law on the non-entertainment of writ petitions where a statutory alternative remedy exists.
Citations
- Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771
- United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110