Statutory recovery remedy bars writ relief where debtors seek to evade repayment and the appellate deposit requirement.

Where the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provides an efficacious statutory recovery and appellate mechanism, the High Court will not ordinarily exercise writ jurisdiction to bypass that remedy. The petitioners had overdrawn their cash credit limit, failed to regularise the account or furnish security, and sought to avoid recovery proceedings by arguing that the debt was not finally determined. The Court held there was no legal basis to interfere in aid of a debtor resisting repayment and the statutory deposit requirement, so the writ petition and letters patent appeal were not maintainable and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition and the letters patent appeal were maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The petitioners had overdrawn their cash credit limit, failed to regularise the account or furnish security when called upon, and resisted recovery proceedings by contending that the debt had not yet been finally determined. The statutory framework under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provided an alternative remedy, and the Court found no legal basis to bypass that remedy in aid of a debtor who was avoiding repayment and the statutory deposit requirement. In the circumstances, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

Conclusion: The writ petition and the appeal were not maintainable for interference and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory recovery mechanism provides an efficacious alternative remedy, the High Court will not ordinarily exercise writ jurisdiction to assist a debtor seeking to evade recovery and the conditions attached to the statutory appellate process.

---