Court Affirms Writ Jurisdiction Not Suitable for Private Contractual Disputes, Directs Appellant to Civil Court
In a significant ruling, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, dismissed the writ appeal filed by Sunit Kumar Agarwal against the Assistant General Manager of Punjab National Bank. The appellant, a former empanelled advocate for the bank, sought the court's intervention to recover unpaid professional fees.
The court's decision, dated July 14, 2026, upheld the earlier order of a single judge, which declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the matter. The appellant, who represented himself, claimed outstanding dues of Rs. 10,00,628, attributing non-payment to alleged administrative malice and bribery demands by bank officials. However, the respondent bank disputed these claims, citing deficiencies in services provided by the appellant.
The core issue before the court was whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was appropriate for resolving disputes arising from private contracts, particularly where facts were contested. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is a public law remedy meant to address constitutional overreaches and arbitrary state actions, not a mechanism for recovering dues in commercial or professional agreements.
The judges noted that the appellant's claims were disputed by the bank, transforming the issue from a public law matter to one of private civil obligations. They stressed that only absolute admissions of liability and arbitrariness offending Article 14 could justify writ intervention, conditions not met in this case.
While dismissing the appeal, the court clarified that the appellant still had recourse to pursue his claims through a competent civil court, where detailed pleadings, evidence, and a regular trial could establish the veracity of the claims. The judgment also provided that the time spent in the writ petition and appeal would be excluded from the limitation period if the appellant chose to file a civil suit.
The decision underscores the limitations of writ jurisdiction in private contractual disputes and reinforces the need for such matters to be addressed in civil courts.
Bottom line:-
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for enforcing disputed claims arising from private contracts, even when one party is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 of the Constitution of India
