Rameswarlal And Company Limited vs. Canara Bank

Facts

M/s. Rameswarlal & Company Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The petitioner challenged the sale certificate dated June 6, 2025, registered on June 10, 2025, in favor of Respondent No. 3, Akula Srihari Rao, a GST Superintendent. The property in question, measuring 130.50 Sq.Yds, was auctioned by Canara Bank (Respondents No. 1 and 2). The petitioner alleged that the auction was conducted fraudulently, below market price, and without notice to them, violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that Respondent No. 3, being a government servant, purchased the property without prior approval, in violation of Rule 18(2) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner sought to set aside the sale certificate and prevent dispossession.

Held

The Court held that it would not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary reason for this decision was the existence of an equally efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Court relied on the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon. Therefore, the Court found no compelling reason to bypass the statutory mechanism established for resolving such disputes. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's allegations regarding fraud, undervaluation, or violation of conduct rules. The issue of whether the sale certificate should be set aside was not decided on its merits by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petitioner's challenge to the sale certificate, considering the availability of an alternative remedy? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the sale of their property by Canara Bank was fraudulent, conducted below market value, and without affording them an opportunity to be heard or redeem the property. They further alleged a violation of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, by Respondent No. 3, a government servant, purchasing the property without prior approval. The petitioner contended that these actions violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution, necessitating intervention by the High Court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondents likely pointed towards the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.