2020 (5) TMI 700 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking direction to the Appellant-Bank to pay his lawful admitted claims in terms of agreement - seeking also to deposit the income-tax papers with immediate effect - HELD THAT - The case set up by the Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition is neither an admitted position nor is it possible to even remotely suggest that it is indisputable so as to bind the Appellant-Bank on that basis. Moreover from the narration of facts it is more than clear that it would involve scrutiny of complex matters and issues including about the existence of the very agreement which is the foundational evidence for seeking relief as prayed in the writ petition. In that the genuineness and existence of the stated agreement has been put in issue by the Appellant-Bank and which is made good on the basis of affidavits of concerned Bank officials and even supported by the report of the District Magistrate referred to in his affidavit dated 5.5.2016. 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. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Alleged agreement and its genuineness.
3. Disputed facts and their adjudication.
4. Appropriate remedy for the Respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Appellant-Bank contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the case involved complex factual matters unsuitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction. The Bank cited the Constitution Bench decisions in *Thansingh Nathmal* and *Suganmal* to support the position that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, especially when the case involves disputed facts requiring elaborate examination of evidence.

2. Alleged Agreement and Its Genuineness:
The Respondent No. 1 claimed an agreement dated 27.5.1990, which the Bank allegedly refused to honor. The Bank denied the existence and genuineness of this agreement, asserting it was fabricated. The Bank supported its stance with affidavits from its officials and a report from the District Magistrate, which suggested the documents pertaining to the agreement were forged and fabricated.

3. Disputed Facts and Their Adjudication:
The case involved several disputed facts, including whether the Respondent No. 1 deposited ?14,93,000/- and whether the agreement was genuine. The Bank's officials denied being party to the agreement, and the District Magistrate's affidavit supported the Bank's claim of forgery. The High Court, however, proceeded to decide the case based on the documents presented by the Respondent No. 1 without adequately addressing the Bank's objections and the complexity of the factual disputes.

4. Appropriate Remedy for the Respondent:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have relegated the Respondent No. 1 to an appropriate remedy, such as a civil suit, for adjudication of the contentious issues. The Court noted that the High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction was not appropriate given the complex factual disputes and the nature of the relief sought, which was essentially for the enforcement of a disputed agreement and refund of money.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench. The writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 was dismissed with liberty to pursue other alternative remedies as permissible by law. The Court underscored that all contentions remain open, including proceeding against the Respondent No. 1 if it is found that false statements were made or forged documents were produced. The Court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in cases involving complex factual disputes better suited for civil courts.