Writ jurisdiction over bank recall measures rejected where borrower suppressed material facts and SARFAESI remedies were available.

A lender bank's recall of credit facilities was treated as arising from a contractual banker-borrower relationship without the public law element needed for Article 226 review, so writ interference was not maintainable. The Court also noted that the borrower had withheld material facts about lease termination and arbitral proceedings, conduct viewed as inconsistent with the duty owed to the banker. Because an efficacious remedy was available under the SARFAESI framework against the demand notice, and no extraordinary circumstances justified bypassing it, discretionary relief was refused. The bank action was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the lender bank's recall of credit facilities and related measures were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the borrower's nondisclosure of the lease termination and arbitral proceedings, coupled with the availability of remedies under the SARFAESI Act, justified interference.

Issue (i): Whether the lender bank's recall of credit facilities and related measures were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned action arose from a banker-borrower relationship governed by contract and commercial dealings. The bank's status as a private lending agency, and the regulatory framework under which it functioned, did not by itself create the kind of public law element required for judicial review in writ proceedings. The order emphasized that the essential nature of the impugned action, not merely the formal status of the respondent, determines writ maintainability, and that prudent banking decisions in commercial matters are ordinarily outside the scope of constitutional interference.

Conclusion: The challenge was held not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the borrower's nondisclosure of the lease termination and arbitral proceedings, coupled with the availability of remedies under the SARFAESI Act, justified interference.

Analysis: The borrower was found to have withheld material information both when the original large credit facility was obtained and when the additional facility was sought. The order treated this nondisclosure as culpable conduct inconsistent with the duty owed by a customer to a banker. It also noted that the petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI framework against the demand notice, and that no extraordinary circumstances were shown to bypass that statutory remedy. The conduct before the Court, including suppression of material facts, also weighed against grant of discretionary relief.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the borrower was denied relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both maintainability and merits, and the impugned bank action was left undisturbed.

---