Writ jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed loan-account facts where contractual remedies and debt recovery proceedings are available.

Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel adjudication of disputed loan-account issues where the controversy depends on contractual terms, the moratorium period, and the classification of accounts as non-performing assets. The Madras HC held that such questions involved disputed facts and contract interpretation, which are not fit for determination under Article 226, especially when recovery proceedings were already pending and the borrowers could pursue remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In these circumstances, no mandamus could issue to require the Reserve Bank of India to examine the complaints or interfere with the bank's recovery process.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the Reserve Bank of India to examine the borrowers' complaints concerning the computation of the moratorium period and the declaration of the loan accounts as non-performing assets, despite the existence of disputes arising out of the loan agreements and pending recovery proceedings.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the terms of the loan arrangements, including the commencement of the moratorium period and the effect of the contractual documents between the borrowers and the bank. The Court held that these matters involved disputed questions of fact and contractual interpretation, which could not be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also noted that the accounts had already become non-performing assets, that recovery proceedings were pending, and that the petitioners could raise their grievances before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In these circumstances, no mandamus could issue to compel the Reserve Bank of India to adjudicate the representation or interfere in the bank's recovery process.

Conclusion: The request for writ relief was rejected, and no direction was issued to the Reserve Bank of India to examine the complaints.

Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to interfere in a contractual and recovery-related banking dispute, leaving the parties to work out their remedies before the competent forum.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, the Court will not issue mandamus to resolve disputed contractual and factual issues arising from loan transactions, particularly where statutory recovery remedies are available and the dispute can be pursued before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

---