Supreme Court emphasizes alternative remedies over writ jurisdiction for complex factual disputes. Single Judge and Division Bench decisions set aside.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the writ petition and emphasizing that the High Court should have directed the Respondent to pursue alternative remedies, such as a civil suit, due to the complex factual disputes involved in the case. The Court highlighted that writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for adjudicating the disputed agreement and refund claims. The decisions of the single Judge and Division Bench were set aside, granting liberty to explore other legal avenues.

---

---

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 Rs. 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.

---