Writ – Jurisdiction of – When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature – Respondent no. 1 alleged that he had taken a term loan of Rs.10,000/- from the Bank in 1984 – In 1990, the term loan with interest had mounted upto a figure of Rs.13,386/- – In 1989, respondent no. 1 was granted two cheques of Rs.5000/- each as Earthquake Relief Fund – The said two cheques were deposited with Bank for encashment, however, the said amount of cheques were transferred to the loan account and the same was done without any authorisation – It was also alleged by respondent no. 1 that he approached bank with Rs.14,93,000/- for issuance of two bank drafts – However, the Bank transferred the said amount to the loan account – Thereafter, respondent no. 1 approached the District Magistrate – Respondent no.1 alleged that his basic assertion was found correct and liability was accepted by the bank, and it was reduced to an agreement dated 27.05.1990 – However, a writ petition was filed by respondent no.1 when Bank refused to honour the agreement – The Bank denied the allegation of transfer of proceeds of two cheques of Rs.5000/- to loan account and also denied the allegation of deposit of Rs.14,93,000/- by respondent no. 1 – The Bank explicitly denied the genuineness and existence of the documents annexed to the writ petition and asserted the same as forged, fabricated and manufactured documents – The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition – Aggrieved, the Bank filed LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court which was dismissed – On appeal, held: The Bank had categorically denied the case set up by the respondent no. 1 in the writ petition in toto; and moreso the stand taken by the Bank could be substantiated on the preponderance of probabilities – In other words, the case set up by the respondent no. 1 in the writ petition is neither an admitted position nor it is possible to even remotely suggest that it is indisputable, so as to bind the Bank on that basis – Also, the District Magistrate in the affidavit clearly denied the existence of the stated proceedings for want of contemporaneous official record in that regard – This aspect was not taken into account by the High Court – From the narration of facts, it is clear that it would involve security of complex matters and issues including about the existence of the very agreement, which is the foundational evidence for seeking relief as prayed in writ petition – The High Court committed manifest error in disregarding the core jurisdictional issue that the matter on hand involved complex factual aspects, which could not be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction – The High Court should have relegated the parties to other alternative remedy as may be permissible in law – Thus, the impugned decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The judgment of the single Judge of the High Court has completely glossed over the crucial aspects and the writ petition has been disposed of in a very casual manner. The Division Bench of the High Court committed the same error in upholding the decision of the single Judge. The Division Bench has not even analysed the efficacy of the affidavits filed in support of the stand taken by the appellant-Bank during the pendency of the LPA. It merely reiterates the view taken by the Single Judge in just two short paragraphs. It has not analysed the efficacy of the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 04 (DW1) PNB/1989-90, as well as, the certified copy of the proceedings filed in appeal before it, in the context of affidavits of Bank officials and report of the District Magistrate. The Division Bench was also misled by the voluminous documents relied upon by the respondent No. 1 and assumed that the same could not be a figment of imagination or a piece of fiction. [Para 15][687-G-H; 688-A-B]
2. Even if the impugned judgments were to be read as a whole, there is no analysis of the relevant documents and in particular, the stand taken by the appellant-Bank expressly denying the existence of the stated agreement and genuineness thereof, which plea was reinforced from the affidavits of the concerned Bank officials and the report of the District Magistrate. Notably, the District Magistrate in the affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated 18.3.2016 had clearly denied the existence of the stated proceedings for want of contemporaneous official record in that regard. This aspect has not been taken into account by the High Court at all. On facts, therefore, the High Court committed manifest error in disregarding the core jurisdictional issue that the matter on hand involved complex factual aspects, which could not be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. [Para 16][688-C-E]
3. When the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in the present case, which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the concerned party and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit. Had it been a case where material facts referred to in the writ petition are admitted facts or indisputable facts, the High Court may be justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law. [Para 17][690-G-H; 691-A]
4. A priori, this Court has no hesitation in taking the view that in the facts of the present case, the High Court should have been loath to entertain the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and should have relegated the respondent No. 1 to appropriate remedy for adjudication of all contentious issues between the parties. [Para 22][693-F-G]
Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1419; Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 1740 –
followed.
Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 769; Babubhai
Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot & Ors. (1974) 2 SCC 706 : [1975] 2 SCR 71; M/s. Hyderabad Commercials v. Indian Bank & Ors. (1991) 2 Suppl. SCC 340; ABL International Ltd. & Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553; Bhinka & Ors. v. Charan Singh AIR 1959 SC 960 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 798; Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 10 SCC 758 : [2013] 7 SCR
760 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.