AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 25-08-2026
The Writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“(i)For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Branch Manager Bank of Baroda Daudnagar Branch respondent no.2 (Annexure-15) whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner SO made in his representation dated 18.11.2016 was denied.
(ii)For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondent to re-calculate and to inform/disclose to the petitioner the rest due amount standing due on 13-12-2000 in the name of the petitioner or his firm in C.C. Account no. 543 after adjustment of Rs. 81,670/-w.e.f. 1-2-2000 as well as without adjusting the amount of F.D. Rs. deposited as Security by the petitioner for Loan.
(iii)For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents not to adjust the amount of F.D. Rs. deposited by the petitioner for Loan, towards the rest due amount standing due on 31.12.2000 in the name of the petitioner and his Firm in C.C. Account no. 543.
(iv)For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to accept the rest due amount standing due on 31.12.2000 in the name of the petitioner and his Firm in the C.C. Account no. 543.
(v)For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner the matured value of the F.D. Rs. of the petitioner after renewing the same with upto date interest.
(vi)For any other relief or reliefs of which the petitioner is legally entitled to.”
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned counsel for the respondent.
The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, held as follows:
The High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily 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 institutions. While dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.
In case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-
97.This court has time and again, reminded the high courts that they should not entertain petition under article 226 of the constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI ACT.
In case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs UCO Bank & Ors reported in 2024 Insc 297, the same principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The above citations squarely apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again reminded that the High Court should not entertain, a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an alternative and effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
This Court is of the considered view that the Writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.
It is apt to mention that the petitioner has approached this Court for the second time. Earlier, he had approached this Court in CWJC No. 12154 of 2010, and vide order dated 02.04.2015 this Court directed the respondent authority to pass a speaking order based on the representation of the petitioner. This Court has categorically expressed that the said order was passed without going into the merits of this case and left it open to be decided by the competent authority of the Respondent Bank of Baroda strictly in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considerable view that the Writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative and effective remedy is available to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for availing such remedy, and the concerned authority shall also consider the aspect of limitation.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of.
Footnotes
- 1.AFR/NAFR NAFR
- 2.CAV DATE N/A
- 3.Uploading Date 25.08.2026
- 4.Transmission Date