Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for contractual disputes requiring evidentiary appreciation.

Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra placed deposits of ₹1 crore and ₹2 crore with Bank of India under its non-callable deposit scheme, each for 450 days.

When it later sought premature closure to meet urgent financial requirements, the Bank refused, stating that the scheme permitted early withdrawal only in specified exceptional circumstances

The Single Judge held that Nirmithi Kendra was a public-sector undertaking (PSU), ineligible to make non-callable deposits under the scheme, and directed release of the deposits with interest at the rate applicable to ordinary fixed deposits

The Bank appealed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958

1. Whether the Single Judge erred in holding that Nirmithi Kendra was a PSU and therefore could not make non-callable deposits under the Bank’s scheme

2. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable where the dispute arose from contractual obligations under the non-callable deposit scheme

3. Whether the Accounts Manager who represented Nirmithi Kendra had sufficient authority to institute the writ petition

Under Article 226, a contractual dispute is not automatically excluded from writ jurisdiction, but the High Court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction where the dispute is essentially private and contractual, involves complex or disputed facts requiring evidence, or concerns a monetary claim arising from contractual obligations.

In Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728, the Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily inappropriate for purely contractual disputes without a public-law element, and cannot generally be used to avoid voluntarily accepted contractual obligations

Under the Bank’s non-callable deposit scheme, Central and State Governments and their PSUs were ineligible, while premature withdrawal was permitted only in specified exceptional cases; the scheme also required the non-callable feature to be clearly communicated to the customer

The Court held that Nirmithi Kendra was an autonomous body under the Government of Kerala, not a PSU; accordingly, the Single Judge’s contrary finding—and the conclusion that the Bank could not accept its non-callable deposits—was incorrect.

The Court further found that the deposits were made under the scheme and that neither the SOP nor the penalty wording on the receipts could expand the scheme’s limited exceptions for premature withdrawal.

However, whether the Bank had adequately explained the scheme’s terms when accepting the deposits, and whether Nirmithi Kendra had knowingly accepted those terms, were disputed matters requiring appreciation of evidence.

Because the parties’ rights depended on the scheme, the deposit receipts and their communications, the dispute was contractual and unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings.

Having found the petition not maintainable, the Court did not decide the Accounts Manager’s authority to institute it or the Bank’s later loan offer.

It held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the dispute involved contractual obligations and disputed facts requiring evidentiary assessment.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and dismissed the writ petition; it left the question of the Accounts Manager’s authority undecided.