Statutory claim proceedings must consider borrower objections, and writ relief remains available for jurisdictional failure.

Under the State Financial Corporations Act, proceedings for enforcement of the Corporation's claim required the District Judge to examine the borrower's objections once cause was shown, because the statutory expression "claim" and the procedural scheme under Section 32 permit investigation of the factual basis and consequential reliefs such as variation or dissolution of attachment. The refusal to consider those objections was therefore unjustified. The availability of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, so the writ petition remained maintainable under Articles 226 and 227; the matter was remitted for fresh consideration while attachment continued until disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings under Sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the District Judge was bound to investigate the objections raised by the industrial concern and could grant consequential reliefs such as release from attachment or instalments under the applicable civil procedure principles; (ii) whether the writ petition was barred because an alternative appellate remedy had not been pursued.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings under Sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the District Judge was bound to investigate the objections raised by the industrial concern and could grant consequential reliefs such as release from attachment or instalments under the applicable civil procedure principles.

Analysis: Section 31 creates a special procedure for enforcement of the Corporation's claim, but the expression "claim" is broad enough to include the factual basis of the demand and the borrower's objections. Under Section 32(6), once cause is shown, the District Judge must investigate the claim in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, so far as applicable. The scheme of Section 32(7) also shows that the Judge may confirm, vary, or dissolve attachment, release property, or reject the claim for transfer of management, which confirms the width of the jurisdiction. The Court held that the District Judge was not confined to the bare monetary demand and ought to have examined the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner. Reliance was also placed on the procedural width recognised in civil process and on the analogy of other provisions where such proceedings are treated as akin to a suit for limited purposes.

Conclusion: The District Judge ought to have investigated the petitioner's objections and the refusal to do so was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was barred because an alternative appellate remedy had not been pursued.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar writ relief where the authority has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The existence or lapse of the appeal period did not alter that principle, because the petitioner could still have sought condonation and, more importantly, the grievance went to jurisdictional failure. In those circumstances, the petition was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The order of the District Judge was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the petitioner's objections in accordance with law, while the attachment was kept operative until disposal by the District Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statutory procedure requires the District Judge to investigate the claim on cause being shown, the jurisdiction includes consideration of the borrower's substantive objections, and writ relief remains available when the statutory authority fails to exercise that jurisdiction.

---