The Bombay High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by M/s Railroad Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. challenging an order of the Banking Ombudsman that upheld the levy of processing and foreclosure charges by Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Justice Advait M. Sethna held that the dispute arose from a purely contractual relationship between the borrower and the bank and involved disputed questions of fact, including the validity of renewal of loan facilities and the charges levied thereon. The Court noted that the primary relief sought was recovery of over ₹20.68 lakh, which could not be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Reiterating settled law, the Court observed that contractual and monetary claims must be pursued through ordinary civil remedies and not by way of a writ petition, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The Court declined to examine the merits of the Banking Ombudsman’s order, holding the petition to be not maintainable.
At the same time, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. All contentions of the parties, including those relating to limitation, were kept open. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mihir S. Raje.
For the Respondent: Adv. Nikhil Rajani, a/w Adv. Ajay Deshmane, i/by V. Deshpande & Co.
