Relief undertaking notification and writ jurisdiction: remedies were temporarily suspended, and alternative statutory remedy did not bar intervention.

The Bombay Relief Undertaking Act, 1958 was treated as temporarily suspending remedies for enforcement of pre-existing liabilities during the notification period, while the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was described as providing the forum and procedure for debt adjudication and recovery. The two enactments were held to operate in different fields and to be capable of harmonious construction. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy was not treated as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, particularly where the Tribunal was said to lack jurisdiction and where intervention was needed to give effect to the relief undertaking notification. The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained notwithstanding the statutory appeal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and whether the notification under the Bombay Relief Undertaking Act, 1958 suspended the creditor's remedy so as to bar proceedings before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Bombay Relief Undertaking Act, 1958 was held to operate by temporarily suspending the remedies for enforcement of pre-existing liabilities during the currency of the notification, while the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was held to provide only the forum and procedure for adjudication and recovery of debts. The Court held that the two enactments operate in different fields and can be read harmoniously. It further held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction in every case, particularly where the Tribunal is said to lack jurisdiction and where interference is required to effectuate, rather than frustrate, the legislative intent.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the petition was entertained; the Court held that the Tribunal could not proceed in disregard of the relief undertaking notification.

---